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

Re: Core Packages in Violation of the Fedora Naming Guidelines

David Lutterkort wrote:
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 16:34 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 16:14, Fernando Nasser wrote:
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.
But now we have upstream versions in downstream releases and release namespace is exploading. So putting it in the name is wrong, putting it in version is wrong, putting it in release is wrong, that leaves Provides. It seems to me that the only REAL reason for having the jpp in the nevr is for user visibility, which could be accomplished by rpm -q --provides.

There is also the issue that people want to get the latest from jpackage
_or_ Fedora, whichever is newer, so it's not just cosmetic. The order
that is wanted is 1jpp < 1jpp.1.fc5 < 2jpp < 2jpp.1.fc5 etc.

I can't think of another scheme to achieve this interleaving given that
both the name and the version are fixed (cause they are determined by
the upstream source) and that jpackage needs to set some sort of release
for their packages, too.

Exactly.  This has been working fine for a couple of years already.

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