Core Packages in Violation of the Fedora Naming Guidelines

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 15:11 -0400, Thomas Fitzsimmons wrote:

> How about this convention for Fedora:
> 
> Release: %{jpackage_release_number}.%{fedora_release_number}
> 
Hi Tom, Gary, others,

We're all discussing the mechanics of the Release tag here, but the
first thing the Packaging Committee needs to know to be able to address
this issue is what goals are valid and which are not.

I've started a wiki page that expresses the issue in those terms:

http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/JavaPackageNaming

(Feel free to add discussion points, new goals, alternate proposals,
ways to modify the current proposals to make them better, etc)

The summary for the goals is:

1) Is the Fedora Java group's Policy to support interleaving jpackage
and Fedora packages?  If so then we'll be exploring what kind of naming
would make this possible.  No other set of developers has said they want
the headache of maintaining this so we have not had to design something
that works like this.

2) Do both users and packagers need to figure out what jpackage release
the Fedora release is based on and why?  Does having the release
information in another part of the spec file (For instance, as a
provide) give you the same value?  Why or why not?

3) Do you want to block upgrades from Fedora packages to JPackage
packages?

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20060714/19916a43/attachment.sig>