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

Re: Core Packages in Violation of the Fedora Naming Guidelines



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


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