[Fedora-packaging] Naming Policy (first draft)

Chuck R. Anderson cra at WPI.EDU
Wed Feb 23 21:46:31 UTC 2005

On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 11:17:32PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> 1) Version and release-tags: Package version should obviously follow
> upstream version in normal, sane cases but especially things like 1.0-
> pre1 need special rules to handle without epochs, those should be
> covered in this doc. The old fedora.us packaging guidelines doc, section
> C-3 (http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines) pretty much
> covers these cases if you drop the 0.fdr tags from the rules.

+1.  This will help avoid unnecessary epoch inflation.  For even more 
giggles, see development:

rpm -qp --qf='%{epoch}\n' *.rpm | sort | uniq -c | sort -n

> 2) While at versions and releases: can we *please* have a standard on
> release-tags. Current FC trees have a wild variety of things in there
> like "3jpp_2fc", in general a truly random FC3 vs fc2 dist-tags for some
> packages (disttags are just fine when needed but can we standardize on
> lowercase like with package names, please :) .. and so on. Just do
> 'rpm -qp --qf "%{release}\n" *|sort -u' on current FC-devel RPMS
> directory for giggles. Please let's have a standard of allowed
> characters in release and version tags as well since we're having one
> for names?


> 3) Addon packages: when a package is renamed, eg 'adodb' -> 'php-adodb'
> it *might* be a good idea to add the original name as a "Provides:
> adodb" so people looking for upstream naming can find it more easily.

Already covered in section 1.7 "Renaming a package".  You need the
Obsoletes: too.

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list