On Jan 13, 2012, at 2:44 PM, Henrik Ingo wrote: > 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? >
I'd really prefer this as well. I think it would be my vote to go for a drizzle-7.0.z (even/stable), drizzle-7.1.z (odd,dev), drizzle-7.2.x (even/stable), drizzle-8.0 (even/stable)… just my thoughts though. --- derks > 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
