Ok, good. This was why I raised the issue in the first place. So back to the drawing board: Could we just behave like normal people and release drizzle-version.tar.gz? Stewart?
henrik On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:09 PM, BJ Dierkes <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jan 13, 2012, at 2:11 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:00 AM, BJ Dierkes >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Where the Provides is at least '1' higher than the conflict. That said, >>> this does not fly in Fedora… as there are explicit package guidelines that >>> state that nothing in Fedora/EPEL can hard conflict with another package. >>> >> >> It took me a while to understand what this means, but seems this is >> perfectly ok also with our current way of doing things. This just >> means that Fedora/EPEL will only stick to a specific Drizzle version >> per Fedora/EPEL release. It's what I expect all distros to do anyway. >> >> So for instance if Fedora 14 had drizzle7, it will never have >> drizzle7.1. Next version of Fedora (is it 16?) would possibly choose >> drizzle7.1 and never ship drizzle7. EPEL would do the same, until >> drizzle is included in RHEL after which EPEL cannot contain any >> drizzle version. It seems all of this is quite ok (and would be the >> case also if we changed name, version to be drizzle-7.1). >> > > I understand the reasoning behind doing the versioning this way. Buy I have > to tell you, going this route makes quite a headache for distros.. at least > with Fedora in mind. This is because every package in Fedora must be named > based on the source. Therefore, drizzle7 in Fedora is a complete separate > package (git repo, package in pkgdb, etc) than drizzle7.1. So once > drizzle7.1 was destined for Fedora, the following would have to happen: > > * drizzle7 would have to be EOL'd > * drizzle7.1 would have to go through a package review > * drizzle7.1 branches (git repo, package in pkgdb, etc) would all need to be > requested and created by Fedora admins > * Everything that requires drizzle7 would have to be updated/auditted/etc to > avoid breaking anything > > > On the last note, if the package just 'Requires: drizzle' then there isn't a > problem… but new package maintainers may not know that… and would do what > everyone else does which is to Require the actual package name. As a Fedora > maintainer… this type of upstream model would really drive me crazy and would > push me toward not wanting to maintain the packages. > > --- > derks > > > >> henrik >> >> -- >> [email protected] >> +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo >> www.openlife.cc >> >> My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559 > -- [email protected] +358-40-8211286 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo www.openlife.cc My LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=9522559 _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
