Core Packages in Violation of the Fedora Naming Guidelines

[Fernando Nasser]

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> I think it's been used long enough on a packageset big enough to show
> this is not the case
>
>   
And this sounds like an extemporaneous nitypicking for me. 
I was not yet given a technical reason for changing, just someone's 
subjective sense of esthetics.

It is a huge change, on a huge number of packages, involving an upstream 
community that does this work for years, on something that has been done 
successifuly for two generations of Fedora Core (FC3 and FC4) plus 
several releases on RHEL (not to mention Suse Mandriva et al.) and the 
changes proposed have serious practical implications as already noted on 
this thread (and note also that the people now requesting a change have 
been dealing with this same release naming for all this time.)

And for what?  What are the technical advantages that will be obtained 
with this change?  If we knew what effect wants to be obtained we could 
perhaps think together in a better way to solve it.

I strongly suggest that we spend our time producing something that can 
improve the experience for Fedora 6 users.  Like an updated AOT compiled 
Java stack with Open Source AppServers on it. What about better video 
drivers?  I had to give up on my dual-head video card when upgrading to 
Fedora 5 (a real regression)?

And instead we are discussing an established release tagging scheme?  
What a waste of cycles.

Is there any _constructive_ way to resolve this issue?

There is a clear distinction between the Java stack and ordinary 
packages, like two levels of upstream, Java-specific develper 
communities characteristics, etc.  What about proposing making Gary 
Benson's description of the Java packages tagging official for Java 
packages, as it has already been used for Fc3 and FC4 and it is 
basically the same used by other Linux distros (Red Hat RHEL, Nocvell 
Suse, Mandriva..)? 

Regards to all,
Fernando