Core Packages in Violation of the Fedora Naming Guidelines

[Jesse Keating]

On Wednesday 12 July 2006 15:52, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> 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)

In which ways are we breaking it?  jpp has foo-2.6.0-6jpp.  Fedora has 
foo-2.6.0.6jpp-1.fc6.  2.6.0.6 is rpmnewer than 2.6.0-6, upgrade path exists.  
If jpp issues 2.6.0-7jpp, its going to be newer than what FC provides yes, 
but do we want users picking up that package?  Shouldn't they stay with the 
FC provided one?  Or do you want it replaced and then replaced again when FC 
bumps the package?

So then put it in the name rather than the version.

"Upstream": foo-2.6.0-6jpp

Name: foo-6jpp
Version: 2.6.0
Release: 1%{?dist}

Provides: foo = 2.6.0-6jpp

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20060712/4b510900/attachment.sig>