Core Packages in Violation of the Fedora Naming Guidelines
jkeating at redhat.com
Wed Jul 12 20:03:33 UTC 2006
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-188.8.131.52jpp-1.fc6. 184.108.40.206 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.
Provides: foo = 2.6.0-6jpp
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Fedora-maintainers