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

Re: Core Packages in Violation of the Fedora Naming Guidelines



On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 15:32 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Friday 14 July 2006 15:11, Thomas Fitzsimmons wrote:
> > How about this convention for Fedora:
> >
> > Release: %{jpackage_release_number}.%{fedora_release_number}
> >
> > This example becomes:
> >
> > foo-2.3-1jpp -> foo-2.3-1.1 -> foo-2.3-2jpp -> foo-2.3-2.1
> >
> > with further Fedora updates being:
> >
> > foo-2.3-2.1 -> foo-2.3-2.2 -> foo-2.3-2.3
> >
> > The release string convention for JPackage packages in Fedora would
> > resemble the convention for pre-release packages.  The release field would
> > no longer contain underscores or non-numeric characters, but it would still
> > be easy for users and developers to see which JPackage release a given
> > Fedora package was derived from.  Because the update path is preserved,
> > this change could be introduced gradually, package by package.
> 
> Add to this the dist tag and I think that's pretty acceptable.  It somewhat 
> breaks our <int>%{?dist}.<int> scheme, but its better than having jpp in 
> there.
> 
> so %{jpackage_release_number}.%{fedora_release_number}%{?dist}
> 
> foo-2.3-2jpp -> foo-2.3-1.2.fc6
> 
> THen we can respin the .fc6 version, .fc6.1  w/out having to bump the fc7 
> version which might be foo-2.3-2.1.fc7

What are you going to do when snapshots enter the picture?

db-ddlutils-1.0-0.060220.2jpp becomes one of the following:
	db-ddlutils-1.0-0.060220.2.1.fc5
	db-ddlutils-1.0-0.060220.2.0.1.20060220cvs.fc5
	db-ddlutils-1.0-2.0.1.20060220cvs.fc5

I believe jpackage sets "2jpp" back to "1jpp" when they update the
snapshot, so the last example wil break and shouldn't be used.

In either of the first two, the Fedora packager and reviewer have to be
aware of both the Fedora Naming Guidelines and the JPackage naming
guidelines which is going to be confusing and an extra burden on
reviewers.  FESCo was worried about the Fedora Packaging Guidelines
becoming too big and cumbersome yesterday, do we really want to force
two sets of Package Naming Guidelines on people?

Also to be aware of:  Interspersed Milestones and snapshots:
JPackage: axion-1.0-0.20060220.2jpp => axion-1.0-1.M3.1jpp =>
axion-1.0-2.1jpp

We have to break the "0" metaphor for prerelease packages because the
jpackage places the jpackage release number at the end rather than the
beginning.

-Toshio

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


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