rdieter at math.unl.edu
Tue Jul 10 18:47:45 UTC 2007
Rex Dieter wrote:
>> The second question is what is the new packaging name scheme? If the
>> name scheme is still compat-<package>-<major-minor> I would go with
>> that.. if it isnt then I would go with something like: fftw_22 fftw_3x
>> as the name schemes
> match rpmforge: fftw (v2.x) and fftw3
>> Third I would go for an open and documented reasoning document from
>> both forge and you on why the names are different and how a user would
>> be able to deal with this issue.
> Easier to simply match, than to diverge + document I think.
> A bonus is that it's easier to change our minds later (ie, easier to
> migrate fftw/fftw3 -> fftw2/fftw than the other way around).
OK, I'm going to forge ahead (following a suggestion from pjones):
keeping (main) Name: fftw ,so srpm matches cvs module, and make (binary)
packages named fftw3. clear as mud? hopefully, no one will yell.
More information about the epel-devel-list