Warren's Package Naming Proposal - Revision 2
Warren Togami
warren at togami.com
Fri Nov 7 20:20:28 UTC 2003
http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines
The following is based upon current fedora.us package naming guidelines,
edited and dramatically simplified because fedora.redhat.com no longer
needs many of fedora.us special considerations.
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2003-October/msg01152.html
This is Revision 1 from October 31st, 2003
The below proposal is ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME as fedora.us current
scheme except with the leading "0.fdr." removed from all %{release} tags
and %{reptag} added to the end. I would assert that fedora.us package
naming scheme has demonstrated to be a great success, thus it should
continued in fedora.redhat.com. The below scheme is also in-line with
the common practices used by most of Red Hat's existing packages.
Dispersed within the below draft are "XXX" sections where discussions
are still necessary. The revision history of section iii otherwise
notes sections that have been changed since Revision 1. Section C-7 at
the bottom is the most important part in this revision.
**Fedora Package Naming Guidelines
Warren's Proposal for fedora.redhat.com
Revision 2
================================
i. Introduction
Goals for package naming guidelines
ii. Terminology
iii. Revision History
A. Package Name
B. Version
C. Release Tag
1. Release Prefix
2. Vepoch
3. Non-Numeric Version to Release
4. Dist tag
5. Special: Kernel modules
6. Special: Plugin, theme etc packages
7. Special: Repository Tag
i. Introduction
===============
Goals for the Fedora Package Naming Guidelines
* Easily understandable package naming policy
* Indication of the original source version (end-user convenience)
* Allow for a smooth upgrade path between multiple levels of testing
branches and future distribution upgrades. This means E-V-R must never
be exactly identical between distribution versions.
* Minimize the chance of package conflicts for future Fedora
distribution upgrades.
ii. Terminology
==============
name
This is the "Name" field of RPM .spec files.
version
This is the "Version" field of RPM .spec files.
release tag
This is the "Release" field of RPM .spec files.
dist tag
This is a distribution tag indicating which RHL/FC distribution this
package is intended for. This only occurs in cases where packages from
different distributions are built from the same SRPM and patchlevel.
vepoch
This is our term for "version specific epoch", used in all packages as a
simple means of ensuring upgrades by simple incrementing the leading
number within the release tag. vepoch is otherwise known as "release
number" or "patchlevel". Read C-2 for more information.
XXX: For now I am keeping the term vepoch in this draft because a better
alternative has not been proposed. I personally feel that "release
number" most effectively communicates what this number is about, however
"release number" is confusingly similar to "release tag" no? "release
tag" == %{release}
Please discuss this... we need only choose a name to replace vepoch.
XXX
E-V-R
Abbreviation for epoch, version, and release. This is often referred to
when talking about potential package upgrading problems.
iii. Revision History
=====================
07 October 2003 Draft Revision 2
* C-7 minor number is now %{reptag} for marking repositories and 3rd
party repositories.
* Many XXX sections needing discussion before changes in Draft Revision 3.
31 October 2003 Draft Revision 1.
* Initial post for fedora.redhat.com.
A. Package Name
===============
Package name should preferably match the upstream tarball or project
name from which this software came. In some cases this naming choice is
more complicated. If this package has been packaged by other
distributions/packagers (Mandrake, SuSE, Conectiva, PLD, PLF, FreshRPMS,
etc.) in the past, then we should try to match their name for
consistency. In any case, try to use your best judgment, and other
developers will help in the final decision.
Ultimately it is up to QA to decide upon the proper %{name} before
publication.
B. Version
==========
If the version is only numbers, then these numbers can be put into the
"version" field of the RPM .spec unchanged. If the version contains
non-numeric characters, this creates several problems for RPM version
comparison and a broken upgrade path.
Example:
foobar-1.2.3beta1.tar.gz
foobar-1.2.3.tar.gz
While the "1.2.3" version is newer than the 1.2.3beta1 version, RPM
version comparison thinks the former is newer.
Example:
foobar-1.0a
foobar-1.0b
The "1.0b" version is higher than "1.0a", but all versions of RPM prior
to rpm-4.2-0.55 are confused when it tries to compare letters. Whichever
package is first in the comparison "wins", thus this becomes a two way
upgrade problem. This a < b comparison works properly only in RH9 and
higher.
For simplicity, Fedora treats both pre-release and post-release
non-numeric version cases the same, making the version purely numeric
and moving the alphabetic part to the release tag. Take the numeric
portion of the source version and make that the package version tag.
Read C-3 for more details.
XXX:
Read section C-3 for the very important discussion necessary for
removing the post-release requirement in non-numeric %{version} tags.
XXXX
C. Release Tag
==============
The release tag of Fedora packages more complicated, so this is split
into several parts.
C-1. Release Prefix
-------------------
No longer needed in fedora.redhat.com.
C-2. Vepoch
-----------
The leftmost leading number within the release tag is the "version
specific epoch" or vepoch in Fedora. This number is incremented with
every package update. The vepoch is otherwise known as the "release
number" or "patchlevel".
The key difference between the concept of "vepoch" and "patch level" is
that everything to the right of the vepoch is PURELY INFORMATIONAL. The
only time where it matters is to guarantee a different %{release} tag
between two distribution versions.
The vepoch is to be respected by Fedora Core/Extras/Alternatives/Legacy
as canonical. Package updates in any repository should always check all
other official repositories to be sure that the vepoch is always
incremented and never matching an existing package.
With most normal packages, vepoch is a single number starting at "1".
Under the (C-3) non-numeric version case it is two numbers starting at
"0.1" with the second number being the number to increment.
Normal Package Example:
foobar-1.2.3-1.src.rpm compiles to
foobar-1.2.3-1.i386.rpm
If this package is patched:
foobar-1.2.3-2.i386.rpm
foobar-1.2.3-3.i386.rpm
XXX:
Read section ii. near the top regarding the discussion necessary in
renaming of vepoch within the naming guidelines.
XXX
C-3. Non-Numeric Version to Release
-----------------------------------
As mentioned above in section B (Version) and C-2 (Vepoch), non-numeric
versioned packages can be problematic so they must be treated with care.
These are cases where the upstream version has letters rather than
simple numbers in their version. Often they have tags like alpha, beta,
rc, or letters like a and b denoting that it is a version before or
after the number. Read section B to understand why we cannot simply put
these letters into the version tag.
Release Tag for Pre-Release Packages:
0.%{X}.%{alphatag}
Release Tag for Non-Numeric Post-Release Packages:
%{X}.%{alphatag}
Where %{X} is the vepoch increment, and %{alphatag} is the string that
came from the version.
Example (pre-release):
mozilla-1.4a.tar.gz from upstream is lower than
mozilla-1.4.tar.gz the later "final" version thus
mozilla-1.4-0.1.a Fedora package name
Example (pre-release):
alsa-lib-0.9.2beta1.tar.gz becomes
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.1.beta1
Example (post-release):
gkrellm-2.1.7.tar.gz
gkrellm-2.1.7a.tar.gz Quick bugfix release after 2.1.7
gkrellm-2.1.7-1.a
Upgrade Path Example (mozilla):
mozilla-1.4-0.1.a
Patched
mozilla-1.4-0.2.a
Patched again
mozilla-1.4-0.3.a
Move to 1.4b
mozilla-1.4-0.4.b
Patched
mozilla-1.4-0.5.b
Move to 1.4 "final" version
Notice that this becomes a normal C-2 case
mozilla-1.4-1
Patched
mozilla-1.4-2
Upgrade Path Example (alsa-lib):
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.1.beta1
Patched
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.2.beta1
Move to beta2
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.3.beta2
Move to beta3 and simultaneously patch
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.4.beta3
Patched again
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.5.beta3
Move to rc1
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.6.rc1
Move to rc2
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.7.rc2
Move to "final"
alsa-lib-0.9.2-1
Patched
alsa-lib-0.9.2-2
XXX: Please discuss this:
We should change the post-release case to no longer be effected by the
non-numeric %{version} rule since rpm-4.2 in RH9 and higher are not
effected by this problem. Furthermore (and by accident) rpm python
bindings since rpm-4.1 of RH8 have behaved in a proper fashion while rpm
itself did not, and apt-get has always behaved "properly" when comparing
numbers to letters, or letters to letters. In any case Fedora Legacy
has already agreed that upgrading rpm to the latest version must be done
as the first requirement for all users who will be using Fedora Legacy.
For these reasons we probably *can* allow non-numeric characters into
the version only in certain cases where it is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN it will
not lead to an epoch increment in the future.
Mike Harris brought up the example of the "imap" package with its
strange versioning. In some cases like that, we may need to grandfather
some packages in.
This point needs a LOT more analysis before being ratified, so please
discuss this. Do not contribute to this part of the thread unless you
truly know what you are talking about. No speculation please.
XXX
C-4. Dist tag
-------------
In cases where the same SRPM and patchlevel is used between two or more
distributions supported by Fedora, a dist tag is appended to the end of
the release tag defined in C-2 and C-3. The dist tags with the
following examples appear to be only cosmetic, however the a different
E-V-R is needed between distributions to ensure dist upgrading works
fully in all corner cases.
Dist Tag for Normal Packages:
%{X}.%{disttag}
Where %{X} is the vepoch and %{disttag} is a distribution tag from this
table:
0.7.3 Red Hat Linux 7.3
0.8 Red Hat Linux 8
0.9 Red Hat Linux 9
1 Fedora Core 1
1.93 Fedora Core 1.93 beta
1.94 Fedora Core 1.94 beta
2 Fedora Core 2 beta
Example:
foobar-1.2.3-1.0.7.3.i386.rpm
foobar-1.2.3-1.0.8.i386.rpm
foobar-1.2.3-1.0.9.i386.rpm
foobar-1.2.3-1.1.94.i386.rpm
foobar-1.2.3-1.2.i386.rpm
Upgrade Path Example (FC1 only shown):
foobar-1.2.3-1.1.i386.rpm
foobar-1.2.3-2.1.i386.rpm
foobar-1.2.3-3.1.i386.rpm
Dist Tag for Pre-Release Packages:
%{X}.%{alphatag}.%{disttag}
Where %{X} is the vepoch, %{alphatag} is the pre-release tag described
in C-3, %{disttag} is a distribution tag described above.
Example:
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.1.beta1.0.8.i386.rpm
alsa-lib for RH 8.0
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.1.beta1.1.i386.rpm
alsa-lib for FC1
Upgrade Path Example (RH 7.3 only shown):
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.1.beta1.0.7.3
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.2.beta1.0.7.3
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.3.beta2.0.7.3
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.4.beta3.0.7.3
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.5.beta3.0.7.3
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.6.rc1.0.7.3
alsa-lib-0.9.2-0.7.rc2.0.7.3
alsa-lib-0.9.2-1.0.7.3
alsa-lib-0.9.2-2.0.7.3
XXX:
I replaced all of the underscores with periods due to the "ugly"
reactions from the last draft. Yeah, there isn't a lot of logic behind
"ugly" and having a different delimiter might make it easier to read,
but I would suggest sticking with the period for these reasons:
1) Everyone thinks the underscores were ugly.
2) disttag is always at the end, so there is no confusion.
3) except... when it is a 3rd party repository where the reptag is at
the end. But that isn't so confusing.
Discuss this if you want, but be prepared for more whining about "ugly!"
XXX
C-5. Special Case: Kernel modules
---------------------------------
XXX:
This section still needs much discussion. Later.
XXX
C-6. Plugin, theme etc packages
-------------------------------
Packages that are plugins, themes or the like, ie. enhance other
packages must be named <package-to-enhance>-<enhancement>. If the
resulting name differs significantly from upstream naming, a
Provides: <upstream-name> = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}
must be added. For example:
Upstream package name: modplug-xmms
Fedora package name: xmms-modplug
Provides: modplug-xmms = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}
XXX:
Should we actively discourage packages that *appear* to be plugin,
add-on or theme packages but are actually completely independent? One
example that has caught me off guard lately was Dag's mozilla-firebird
package. While Dag published mozilla-firebird, fedora.us decided
against a name change from MozillaFirebird to mozilla-firebird for these
reasons:
1) No reason to change.
2) Mozilla branding strategy document said the name was changing "soon"
anyway, (which still hasn't happened.)
3) mozilla-firebird is within the long implicitly understood and
fedora.us codified standard of being a component or add-on to "mozilla",
which is clearly wrong in this case.
#2 and #3 were the strongest arguments in my opinion.
I can't think of any other past examples off the top of my head, but I
really want to avoid these kinds of instances in the future if
possible. Please express your opinions.
XXX
C-7. Repository Tag
-------------------
Repository tags are appended to the end of %{release} tags for any
packages not within Fedora Core or Fedora Extras. FC and FE are
excluded because Fedora Core should never contain the same %{name}
package as Fedora Extras, and vice-versa. All external and 3rd party
repositories NEED repository tags. Fedora Alternatives and Fedora
Legacy are to use rep tags.
Repository Tag for Normal Packages:
%{X}.%{disttag}.%{reptag}
Where %{X} is the vepoch and %{disttag} is a distribution tag defined in
C-4, and reptag is an alphanumeric string standardized and unique for a
repository.
XXX:
The below examples are using theoretical reptags.
XXX
Fedora Legacy: apache for RH7.3
apache-1.3.27-4.0.7.3.legacy
Fedora Alternatives: Beowulf for FC2
kernel-2.6.2-3.2.beowulf
beowulf-pxe-images-2.3-2.2.beowulf
cluster-foo-libs-1.7-2.2.beowulf
cluster-foo-tools-1.7-2.2.beowulf
cluster-foo-devel-1.7-2.2.beowulf
freshrpms: 3rd party packages for FC1
diradmin-1.5.1-2.1.fr
AtRPMS: 3rd party packages for FC1
perl-HTML-Tree-3.18-4.1.at
DAG: 3rd party packages for FC1
distcc-2.11.1-1.1.dag
Livna: 3rd party packages for FC1
foogame-3.3-3.beta3.1.lvn
fooutil-2.1-4.1.lvn
fooapplet-1.0-9.rc4.1.lvn
kde-redhat: 3rd party Uncrippled KDE packages for FC1
kdebase-3.1.4-7.1.kderedhat
Note that it is the 3rd party or Alternatives choice of what %{X} number
to use. If they use the same %{X} number as the canonical FC/FE
packages they are superceding, then any future upgrade upstream is
guaranteed to superceed the 3rd party or Alternatives package. This can
be desired or not.
XXX:
The 3 points below need to be worked into the document above
somewhere... too tired to do that at the moment... discuss for now.
Caveats!
1) Fedora Core and Fedora Extras are to be considered canonical. All
other repositories must respect the vepoch of the canonical
repositories, however FC and FE may choose to ignore 3rd parties when
incrementing the vepoch for a new package release.
1a) Since fedora.us will eventually become a major source of Fedora
Extras, fedora.us is to be considered canonical. fedora.us will no
longer exist as a project after the full merge with fedora.redhat.com.
2) In the kde-redhat example, since they are a 3rd party and not
canonical, it is possible that a future FC or FE upgrade will supercede
the kde-redhat package. For this reason it is important for kde-redhat
developers to BE INVOLVED in FC development so they are not caught off
guard. It is the 3rd party's responsibility to simultaneously release
updates to the 3rd party repository in order to avoid breakage or losing
features when the crippled packages overrides the kde-redhat package.
3) These guidelines of canonism may seem onerous, however this
encourages all 3rd party developers to contribute their packages to FC
and FE whenever possible in order to make the central authoritative body
strong. I would assert that the alliances of 3rd party repositories
that have tried to form in the recent past are not sustainable in the
long term, for the same controversial reasons that fedora.us rejected
cooperation with those entities earlier this year. More cooperation is
needed to build an entity and software base like Debian, what we want to
become. (?)
XXX
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list