[Fedora-packaging] Naming Policy (first draft)

Dag Wieers dag at wieers.com
Wed Feb 23 22:09:38 UTC 2005

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:

> Working as fast as I can... here is the first draft of the Naming Policy
> for Fedora Extras. Its not 100% complete yet, there are at least two
> sections missing, but it covers the bases for most new packagers.
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines
> Feedback is welcome, and encouraged.

Looks good, I would propose a standard SPEC file (in the SRPM) formatted 


If your working on a SPEC file and install several other versions, this 
would prevent SPEC files replacing others. And the origin is clear too.

It's something the buildsystem could do before creating the SRPM (in that 
respect it may not be that important for FE).

For the package release, it may be useful to use < 1 release numbers to 
indicate a work in progress. (0.1, 0.2) We're doing the same in case we 
consider something a beta or rc product. (Especially if you're posting 
incremental test releases for other people to try). The version is always 
numeric, the release is also always numeric (in case of alpha/beta/rc < 1 
and followed by the non numeric portion of the version) postfixed with the 
disttag and repotag.

PS I like the gnome-applet-%{name} convention, I have too many applets now 
using the upstream name, which is not very clear whether it is a gnome 
applet or not.

--   dag wieers,  dag at wieers.com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list