[Fedora-packaging] Multiple version naming overly restrictive?

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Hey all, I just noticed this section of the packaging Guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#MultiplePackages

says:

'''
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. The most recent version of a
package should use the base name with no versions, and all other addons
should note their version in the name.
'''

I think specifying that the latest package version has [basename] and
the others have [basename][version] may be overly restrictive.  We have
precedent in gtk+ vs gtk2 (long term), gcc (3.x) vs gcc4 (short term),
gtkhtml vs gtkhtml2 vs gtkhtml3 (long term) for doing things the other
way.  Do we really want to restrict this?

If not, we could amend the text like this:
'''
One package should use the base name with no versions and all other
addons should note their version in the name.
'''

-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/20070629/bfe18e0f/attachment.sig>