Core Packages in Violation of the Fedora Naming Guidelines

[Fernando Nasser]

Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
>> First, as these packages are maintained upstream (not only the software, 
>> but the spec files and other SRPM bits) it is important to know in which 
>> EVR they are based on.  So, if you know that ......6jpp has a fix for 
>> some problem then if the one you have installed is .....6jpp<some fedora 
>> suffix) also has it.  That is what Nicholas was talking about.
>>     
>
> IMHO, this tracking belongs in the upstream versioning, NOT the
> packaging Release field. This is how every single other OSS package
> handles it. That's how I know if httpd has a feature in 2.2.1 that isn't
> in 2.2.0, or if a bug fix is in 2.2.2.
>
>   
You are not considering the two levels of usptream.

The upstream here is the RPM, not the sotware.

The Java RPM packages are created and maintained by a community 
upstream, just imported into Fedora (and Suse and RHEL, and Mandriva 
and....)

As they are RPMs, they already have a Release field which indicates the 
packaging version.  The version field is indeed from the upstream**2 as 
you say it should.

Regards,
Fernando