[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:


it goes in Release, while


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.


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list