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

Re: Core Packages in Violation of the Fedora Naming Guidelines

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-

I've answered your question, you did not answer mine. is rpmnewer than 2.6.0-6, upgrade path exists.
Where does the version ends and the relase begins in this?

6jpp is part of the release, not the version, and it can be prefixed.

What do you do with    foo-2.7-0.cvs20060123.4jpp ?

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?

We want the upstream package to take precedence, as fixes go there first. Once we import that version and produce a pre-compiled (AOT) equivalent, that takes precedence.

So then put it in the name rather than the version.

"Upstream": foo-2.6.0-6jpp

Name: foo-6jpp
Version: 2.6.0
Release: 1%{?dist}

Provides: foo = 2.6.0-6jpp

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.

We do have a few release-marked packages but that is done only as an extreme measure due to incompatible API changes and usually for a limited time (the versioned package is just kept for backward compatibility purposes for the least possible time).


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