Warren's Package Naming Proposal - Revision 1
Mike A. Harris
mharris at redhat.com
Sat Nov 1 07:14:00 UTC 2003
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Warren Togami wrote:
>> Just a personal opinion that this might confuse people, and if a
>> better name can be chosen that is short enough and clear, it
>> might be better.
>
>Hmmm, I am in agreement. While we fedora.us people had no problem with
>vepoch for many months, I can see where it is confusing. I designed the
>name to be "Kind of like epoch, vepoch trumps all, but less."
>
>Perhaps "patchlevel" is a better word.
I'm not sure patchlevel gives the right visual either.. It
implies something to do with the number of patches being applied,
or the version of a patch or something.
>> I strongly agree with this approach. Probably because I stole it
>> from bero, and I think you picked it up from me or from bero
>> also. ;o) It works very well IMHO. It's also very useful with
>> CVS based releases where you can embed the CVS date into the
>> release field instead of the version field, thus avoiding having
>> to use Epoch later on to override the large integer release
>> number from a CVS date.
>
>Yes, when I originally designed this method I was pointing at bero's
>packages as justification. "See! Look, Red Hat did it!"
Yeah, this is a very good way to work around a not uncommon
problem.
>Err... you are completely right about it not being necessary in the
>post-release case. I am not sure why our fedora.us policy retained that
>even though it was unnecessary for all these months. The way I
>understand the older version of rpm broken rpmvercmp behavior, this
>wouldn't be a problem with those versions too.
Ah. RHL 7.2 shipped with rpm-4.0.3-1.03, and 7.3 shipped with
rpm-4.0.4-7x.18, both of which don't have this problem. rpm
4.0.4 is the current erratum for all distribution releases from
RHL 7.0 and later (or a newer version of rpm). Older versions
aparently did have the problem according to other mails I
received, but I think it's safe to say that distro releases
supported by Fedora are unaffected, and that at least as far
back as a properly updated 7.0 system should also be unaffected.
RHL 6.2 seems to have an older rpm version which may or may not
be affected, but I think that's outside the care zone. ;o)
>> Ick. Underscores in version/release are hideous IMHO. I'd use
>> "." instead of "_". Your comment at the top of this section
>> indicates a ".", so perhaps you just made a typo, and sequence of
>> cut and paste errors? ;o)
>
>Oops. Yeah, fedora.us original plan was ".", however some here on
>fedora-devel-list argued toward "_" as a more clear separator between
>the patchlevel and disttag because it can be confusing with so many "."
Hmm. Good point. Perhaps it just needs some getting used to.
>I personally actually prefer the "." separator, but I really don't care
>which is chosen.
I suppose if it's a useful thing to people that we should keep an
open mind about it, even if it is ugly. ;o)
--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list