"redhat" and "fedora" in package naming

Paul B Schroeder pschroeder at uplogix.com
Thu Aug 31 15:25:56 UTC 2006


Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Jeu 31 août 2006 06:45, Jeff Spaleta a écrit :
>> On 8/30/06, Paul B Schroeder <pschroeder at uplogix.com> wrote:
>>> fedora-release to system-release
>>
>> nope not that package since the fedora-release package contains
>> exactly the bits of configuration that tag a system as running
>> 'fedora'.  This is nothing in fedora-release that a downstream distro
>> would need to provide except for /etc/redhat-release file because
>> initscripts needs it which is a symlink anyways.   A downstream distro
>> has absolutely no business reusing the bulk of the files in
>> fedora-release.
> 
> Actually, I think the point was if you want to create Dodo Linux 7 based
> on Fedora Core 6 it's easier to substitute the Dodo Linux id if the
> package/file providing it has a neutral name. No need to scan scripts and
> deps for fedora references - just replace the release file in the package
> with a new one.

Yea..  This is more along the lines of what I was thinking.  If somebody wanted 
to replace initscripts for instance, it is just nicer to replace the files in 
that package or do a patch in the spec file.  I wouldn't create an entirely new 
"myinitscripts" package.  I suppose you could create a new package and say that 
is "provides initscripts".  But that just feels dirty.  And it doesn't keep you 
consistent with FC upstream.

Either way you're going to replace the files in, for example, fedora-release. 
Either by changing the files in the package or creating a new one.  The name of 
a package/distro doesn't really change what people do with them.

As I mentioned, not a big deal, but it would just seem more consistent and 
cleaner to me.


-- 
---

Paul B Schroeder <pschroeder "at" uplogix "dot" com>




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list