[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Warren's rejection of cooperation with other repos



> > > With "not willing to compromise" I refer also to recent controversies,
> > > such as Red Hat's move from redhat-release-9 to fedora-release-1. Asking
> > > for a redhat-release-10 package or changing the disttag from "rh9" (Red
> > > Hat Linux 9) to "rh9.1" (Fedora Core 1) are pretty much unfortunate
> > > suggestions. "rhfc1" is a hack, too.
> > 
> > No, it's not. I hope you will understand the issue and see that
> > Fernando delivered a magnificent solution

A bit of an exageration, to say the least. It is another option...

> > compatible with rpm version
> > to Before Christ. Even one that I highly recommend for fedora.us.
> 
> Why "rhfc1" and not "vfc1"? Why "rh" == "Red Hat" in the disttag
> when the distribution does not have the name "Red Hat Fedora Core"
> but just "Fedora Core"?

It could also be zfc1, of course. "rhfc1" seemed to me a reasonable(*)
choice that solved the problem of upgradability _I_ have. Fedora Core is
not (yet?) an independent project, it is sponsored by RedHat, so
"rh"+"fc" felt right(*). 

If I understand correctly the proper alternative as defined in the
naming guidelines would be to use a "1" (right?), but I really like the
readability of a string. This [may|will] not scale in the future, of
course, depending on how future distros in the same lineage are named. 

-- Fernando

(*) of course this is subjective, somebody else [may|will] think that it
is a completely absurd choice. 





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]