[Fedora-packaging] [Vote] Multiple version naming overly restrictive
a.badger at gmail.com
Thu Jul 5 16:25:19 UTC 2007
On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 11:39 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 11:16 -0700, 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.
> 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
Okay -- with spot's_ +1 in the earlier thread for the same proposal
and my +1 that's six in favor. Tentatively approved but need to send it
to FESCo for review now.
Ralf's change makes sense as well. spot, if you're working on adding
compat-* guidelines, do you want to work this in or should I add it to
next week's agenda separately? (There's a review pending on this change
so I want to keep the first part moving forward.)
-------------- 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