Core Packages in Violation of the Fedora Naming Guidelines

[Fernando Nasser]

David Lutterkort wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 16:34 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Wednesday 12 July 2006 16:14, Fernando Nasser wrote:
>>> Versions in package names?  The namespace will explode in no time, no
>>> history, imagine adding new packages all the time to the bug repository
>>> lists, and so on.  Huge implications.
>> But now we have upstream versions in downstream releases and release namespace 
>> is exploading.  So putting it in the name is wrong, putting it in version is 
>> wrong, putting it in release is wrong, that leaves Provides.  It seems to me 
>> that the only REAL reason for having the jpp in the nevr is for user 
>> visibility, which could be accomplished by rpm -q --provides.
> 
> There is also the issue that people want to get the latest from jpackage
> _or_ Fedora, whichever is newer, so it's not just cosmetic. The order
> that is wanted is 1jpp < 1jpp.1.fc5 < 2jpp < 2jpp.1.fc5 etc.
> 
> I can't think of another scheme to achieve this interleaving given that
> both the name and the version are fixed (cause they are determined by
> the upstream source) and that jpackage needs to set some sort of release
> for their packages, too.
> 

Exactly.  This has been working fine for a couple of years already.