[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Core Packages in Violation of the Fedora Naming Guidelines



On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 16:03 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> 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?

This breaks if upstream ever releases foo-2.6.0.1.  

Jeremy


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]