Core Packages in Violation of the Fedora Naming Guidelines

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le mercredi 12 juillet 2006 à 14:47 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway a écrit :
> On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 15:18 -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> > Jesse Keating wrote:

> > All Java releases for RHEL have been done this way, by adding _NNrh to 
> > whatever the upstream JPackage EVR was with success.
> > For Fedora 3 and Fedora package a _NNfc was adopted.  Gary Benson used 
> > to have a document describing it, which I thought lived in Fedora pages 
> > somewhere.
> > 
> > There are hundreds of Java packages there, all rebuilt from upstream 
> > JPackage.org, shipped on Fedora for a couple of years with this EVR 
> > convention.
> 
> Perhaps its time to revisit this. Yes, it will be painful, but the way
> that these packages are named is painful.

So you're arguing to break technical features just because you find the
current naming ugly ?

How about working on a less-ugly naming with the same characteristics

> > W.r.t. the suffix added after the upstream EVR it does not really 
> > matter. 
> 
> If this is indeed the case, lets drop it altogether. Adding this suffix
> (and the jpp naming) is merely going to cause rpm confusion down the
> road. 

I think it's been used long enough on a packageset big enough to show
this is not the case

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20060712/2112ef32/attachment.sig>