Fix package names of rpms for RHEL

[uli42]

The packages resulting from the spec file have unusual names:

libNX_X11-6-3.5.99.2-0.0build1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
libXcomp3-3.5.99.2-0.0build1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
libXcompext3-3.5.99.2-0.0build1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
libXcompshad3-3.5.99.2-0.0build1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
nxagent-3.5.99.2-0.0build1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
nx-libs-3.5.99.2-0.0build1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
nx-libs-debuginfo-3.5.99.2-0.0build1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm
nxproxy-3.5.99.2-0.0build1.el7.centos.x86_64.rpm

Normally the library names do not contain the library major version. Also they rather contain release numbers and not build numbers. And they should only contain el6 or el7 without an additional centos (as long as they are not specific for centos). So they should be named something like this:

libNX_X11-3.5.99.2-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
libXcomp-3.5.99.2-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
libXcompext-3.5.99.1.el7.x86_64.rpm
libXcompshad-3.5.99.2-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
nxagent-3.5.99.2-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
nx-libs-3.5.99.2-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
nx-libs-debuginfo-3.5.99.2-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
nxproxy-3.5.99.2-1.el7.x86_64.rpm

[sunweaver]

Ionic: comments & feedback?
opoplawski: can you comment on this? Thanks! Mike.

[sunweaver]

@opoplawski: can you give input in nx-libs issue #284, please. Feedback highly appreciated.

Thanks!
Mike

[sunweaver]

@opoplawski: reminder on a quick look at #284. Can you confirm that library names should not contain the major version when RPM packaging them?

Also, I am not quite sure where the .centos. strings in uli42's package names come from...