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

Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa at redhat.com
Thu Jul 5 17:05:35 UTC 2007

On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 18:55 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 11:37 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 09:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > 
> > > 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.)
> > 
> > No, go ahead. I don't know when I will get to the compat guidelines.
> The question to discuss would be: Under which circumstance are they
> applicable and when should the <package>N approach be preferred.
> I am inclined to think the <package>N approach to be more versatile and
> generally applicable (esp. cases of "fully parallel installable
> packages"), while the compat-* approach is aiming at providing "backward
> compatible run-time packages" (in particular lib-packages).

Yes, I feel the same way. Feel free to draft up text if you are
unwilling to wait for me to get around to it. :)


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list