[gccsdk] GCC 4.1.1 Release 2 packages

[Peter Naulls]

alan buckley wrote:

> The problem is the unixlib package and the !UnixLib it installs
> contains the SharedUnixLibrary module. If you conflict with the
> unixlib package then all packages that depend on it will be
> removed when you uninstall it to install the new
> sharedunixlibrary package. You could have a conflict between
> gcc4 and the development unixlib package (I'm not sure what
> its called at the moment UnixLib-Dev?), but not the unixlib
> package.

No, not at all.  You wouldn't get the uninstalls, since you'd
provide the dependency - either with a new package, or a
"Provides:" field.  I don't know if you've used packaging
on Linux systems or not, but this is done a lot.  But it
does have to be done carefully when there are complex
dependency setups.

> I think it should be camelcase or lowercase, not upper case
> for all letters.

Well, that really depends. e.g. "GCC", or other acronyms,
and it may come down to a matter of taste at the time.   One
risk here is the issue we already ran into - inconsistent
caps are easy to make a mistake with - sometimes the
middle caps is a matter of author preference - e.g, "NetSurf".
In Debian, enforcing all lower case avoids this, but the
complicating factor in RISC OS is a case-insensitive filing
system.  Perhaps making the package name matching case-insensitive
too would be a good move.

> I will bear this in mind, and if I get a chance have a more
> detailed look at libpkg, but it's not likely to happen for
> a while.

Ok, even if you just came up with a summary for someone else
to go on with.