Fedora Legacy Launch Plan (draft 2)

[Warren Togami]

Chuck Wolber wrote:
> 
>>Some cases like the kernel package has a distribution version at the
>>end.  The Fedora Legacy package naming will be treated accordingly.
>>
>>kernel-2.4.20-27.8
>>kernel-2.4.20-27.9
>>kernel-2.4.20-28.8.legacy
>>kernel-2.4.20-28.9.legacy
> 
> 
> What do you mean "some" cases? Anything that needs to be backported should 
> have a distro tag, which means that the .legacy part is unnecessary. I 
> think you address that to some degree when you speak of packages in the 
> "updates" channel not being updated, only patched. There's already a long 
> history attached with the various distro versions, it's now our job to 
> continue that sordid trail of backporting/patching. In my mind, that's 
> simply justification for s/legacy/rh$VERSION/ and continuing the portage 
> trail.
> 
> That all being said, I do agree that in *some* cases, we can upgrade to 
> the latest release version without causing any trouble (fileutils, etc). 

I believe we can sanely and easily choose naming on a case-by-case 
basis.  We only need to follow precedent.  This is not a problem.

We disagree about having ".legacy" at the end.  I personally don't see a 
problem in having a longer filename since it *should* be handled 
automatically by tools.  I believe we should have it for two reasons:

1) Clear separation between the official RH/FC updates and Legacy updates.
2) Repository tags are encouraged for all non-FC and non-FE repositories.

I suppose we could have a shorter abbreviation of legacy, but I can't 
think of anything that looks good.

I suppose we could also drop it entirely, but I would encourage not 
dropping it for the above reasons.

Warren