[Fedora-packaging] Naming Policy (first draft)
Bill Nottingham
notting at redhat.com
Thu Feb 24 19:01:48 UTC 2005
Tom 'spot' Callaway (tcallawa at redhat.com) said:
> 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.
Reading the current document:
Package Version
...
If the version is non-numeric (contains tags that are not letters)
...
That doesn't sound right.
Moreover, I disagree - upstream versioning should be followed
wherever possible. I suppose it depends on the package, though.
To pull some recent examples:
squid - goes in Version
cman - goes in Release
Perhaps a quick metric is that if the upstream is:
1.0-preX
it goes in Release, while
1.0.x
goes in Version.
Another way to potentially look at it is that alpha/beta may
go in Release, but *post* release letter affixes go in Version;
for example, I wouldn't want to move OpenSSL to using the letters
in the release.
Bill
More information about the Fedora-packaging
mailing list