Package names in FC5

[Peter Jones]

On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 15:37 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:47:50 -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
> 
> > > No pattern. Core package developers can do what they want, and some of
> > > them still don't seem to care that .fc3 is "newer than" .FC5 in RPM
> > > version comparison.
> > 
> > That's a bit of an exaggeration.  It's not that we don't care, it's that
> > it doesn't matter unless you're doing something *else* really dumb at
> > the same time as *switching* between those two nomenclatures.
> > 
> > *yawn*.
> 
> No need to yawn. :) It has happened before that a package from Core was
> moved to Extras or vice versa, and then you get the "switching" in updates
> unless the different packagers agree on a common way.

Ok, but there's a more serious problem there.  If you're moving the
package from core to extras or vice versa, start with the same spec file
and only change the parts you actually have to.

If our naming policy for extras says we have to use one particular
capitalization for a "release" field, then we should fix it.  That's
just a rule for the sake of having more rules.  It doesn't buy us
anything.

-- 
  Peter