Is there supposed to be a naming convention such that

libfoo

has a corresponding

libfoo-devel

?

If so, there are some violations in 2008.1, for instance, consider
these:

libfftw-devel-3.1.2-8mdv2008.1
libfftw3-3.1.2-8mdv2008.1

Originally my system had libfftw3, so I tried:

% urpmi libfftw3-devel

and that failed, because the name was not as expected.

I looked into this a bit further and it seems that some libraries are
like this one:

libxvmc1-1.0.4-2mdv2008.1
libxvmc1-devel-1.0.4-2mdv2008.1

and others like this one:

libxxf86dga1-1.0.2-2mdv2008.1
libxxf86dga-devel-1.0.2-2mdv2008.1

Does it really make sense to do it both ways???

Also, what's the point of duplicating some of the version number onto
the library name? There are certainly a few packages which have a
numeric identifier unrelated to the version number (libstdc++5 vs.
libstdc++6) but for the vast majority of libraries "libfoo" and a
version number "x.y.z" are sufficient to identify the rpm.

Thanks,

David Mathog