[Fedora-packaging] Naming Policy (first draft)

Chuck R. Anderson cra at WPI.EDU
Wed Feb 23 22:18:02 UTC 2005

On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 11:09:38PM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
> Looks good, I would propose a standard SPEC file (in the SRPM) formatted 
> as:
> 	%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-%{repotag}.spec

-1.  It is easier to deal with shorter spec names that match the
package %{name} and hence the name in CVS.

> 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.

The origin is already clear from the contents of the spec file...  If 
you are worried about overwriting spec files from multiple versions, 
then you should also be worried about overwriting sources and 

You can already prevent these problems with a suitable .rpmmacros

%_topdir	/home/cra/src/redhat
%_ntopdir	%{_topdir}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}
%_builddir	%{_ntopdir}
%_sourcedir	%{_ntopdir}
%_specdir	%{_ntopdir}
%_rpmfilename	%%{NAME}-%%{VERSION}-%%{RELEASE}.%%{ARCH}.rpm
%_rpmdir	%{_topdir}/RPMS
%_srcrpmdir	%{_topdir}/SRPMS

> 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.

+1  This goes along with the old fedora.us guidelines for versioning 
of alpha/beta/rc releases.

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list