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

[Toshio Kuratomi]

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
> 
> -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.

-Toshio
-------------- 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/20070703/9e37c329/attachment.sig>