Package names in FC5

[Rudolf Kastl]

2006/3/29, Peter Jones <pjones at redhat.com>:
> 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
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>

well actually while i am also a fan of practicable solutions... either
there are packaging guidelines... or there arent...

if only half of fedora packages are done according to the guidelines i
ask myself why the other half is forced wasting time with doing it.

I see only one particular solution there... either drop the rules in
general... or have the rules apply everywhere.

regards,
Rudolf Kastl