[Fedora-packaging] [Vote] Multiple version naming overly restrictive

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Tue Jul 3 18:16:43 UTC 2007

We didn't have quorum in the Fedora Packaging Meeting but we did discuss
the proposal[1]_ to relax the guidelines for packages with multiple
versions.  After some discussion it was decided that restricting the
maintainer too much is not desirable.  Some points:

* Guideline was written in the present manner to avoid confusion
* Using compat-* as a namespace for all less than current libraries has
the following disadvantages over [name][version]:
  * cvs history won't follow the compat-* even though it is arguably
closer to the original package than the upgraded one.
  * BuildRequires would have to be changed between branches to
accommodate the compat-* on the newer branch.

I'd like to have votes on relaxing the guidelines as follows:

For many reasons, it is sometimes advantageous to keep multiple versions
of a package in Fedora to be installed simultaneously. When doing so,
the package name should reflect this fact. One package should use the
base name with no versions and all other addons should note their
version in the name.

This gives the maintainer the leeway to choose whether the package is
best served by having the latest version carry the unadorned name
forward or the previous version.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070703/b4e244d4/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list