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

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Thu Jul 5 09:39:56 UTC 2007

On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 11:16 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> 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.

> 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.
Though consider this proposal to be a step into the correct direction, I
don't think it goes far enough.

It still recommends "one version package w/ no version". IMO, this
recommendation is more confusing than helpful and should also be

[Consider "gtk->gtk2"-like cases: in long term, one can expect gtk to
die out and gtk2 to remain. The recommendation could be interpreted as
recommendation to rename gtk2, then.]

=> +1, but ... proposal: Let's also remove the "no version


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list