Fedora Project launches Pre-Extras

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 22:58:40 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers wrote:

-snip-
 
> Which is why I considered .fdr. for fedora.us as a bad choice for a 
> repotag.

Really? Is that documented anywhere? The repository was named "Fedora
Linux" and the first to use the name "Fedora", so .fdr as a repo tag
was very obvious. Just like .fr for freshrpms.net or .dag for your
packages.

When a fan of your repository would offer compatible packages and mark
them with .dag in the filename, it would not be any different than if
other repositories use the .fdr tag started by fedora.us.

> > The same applies to distribution tags. As long as '.FC3' and friends
> > are not too common, they stand out when you look at a package name.
> > As soon as many other packagers use the same dist tags, they don't
> > add anything other than influencing RPM version comparison.
> 
> How does it influence the RPM version comparison in a relevant way ?

Well, it doesn't make much sense to discuss this further or to pound
on obvious examples. Since for inter-repository dependencies, I'm an
advocate of the "determine overlapping contents and move them into a
common base repository" methodology. Alternatively, replicating common
packages with exactly the same NEVR (and preferably, built in the same
environment) would be another solution.