Core Packages in Violation of the Fedora Naming Guidelines

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le mercredi 12 juillet 2006 à 15:44 -0400, Jesse Keating a écrit :
> On Wednesday 12 July 2006 15:18, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> > First, as these packages are maintained upstream (not only the software,
> > but the spec files and other SRPM bits) it is important to know in which
> > EVR they are based on.  So, if you know that ......6jpp has a fix for
> > some problem then if the one you have installed is .....6jpp<some fedora
> > suffix) also has it.  That is what Nicholas was talking about.
> 
> This almost sounds like it should be in the name of the package instead.  
> You're repackaging a package, but want to keep the upstream package 
> information.  foo-6jpp-release-version.  Or if you _really_ have to, move it 
> to the Version field, not the release field.

If you move it to the version you're breaking jpp -> fc upgrade paths
If you put it as Provides it's ok from the package manager POW but not
for users (there are reasons why we use long descriptive filenames and
not DOS-like 8:3 names)

Sure it's not necessary from the package manager POW but nor is the
alphatag and we are still requiring descriptive alphatags.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20060712/0510459f/attachment.sig>