[Fedora-packaging] [Vote] Multiple version naming overly restrictive
a.badger at gmail.com
Tue Jul 3 20:04:26 UTC 2007
On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 21:35 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le mardi 03 juillet 2007 à 14:24 -0400, Jesse Keating a écrit :
> > On Tuesday 03 July 2007 14:16:43 Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > '''
> > > 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.
> > +1
> The compat convention is awkward precisely to incite people to converge
> on a common version. Making multi-versioning easy is a win short term
> and a heavy loss long-term, because everyone just hardcodes a particular
> version hoping for "someone else" to clean up the mess.
Possibly. Note that the current text of the guideline isn't any better.
There is no current guideline to tell when to use (compat-libfoo1 &&
libfoo) vs (libfoo1 && libfoo).
This change just opens up the possibility of libfoo (1.x) and libfoo2
(2.x) being legal.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Fedora-packaging