Core Packages in Violation of the Fedora Naming Guidelines
katzj at redhat.com
Wed Jul 12 20:15:10 UTC 2006
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-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?
This breaks if upstream ever releases foo-220.127.116.11.
More information about the Fedora-maintainers