Re: Old/compat package naming
Toshio Kuratomi wrote: There's no reason in there that the older package must have the versioning and the newer package is bare. No, but the version almost everyone is going to use should be the default, not the suffixed version. Usually, that's the newer version. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Old/compat package naming
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 05:34:40PM +0100, Lubomir Rintel wrote: Hi, Alexander pointed out that I was suggesting a wrong name for Saxon 9 package [1]. In fact there's a couple of packages in repositories now that violate the naming policy [2] in the very same way. Apart from wondering what does Devrim think about renaming the existing saxon package, I'm wondering what do others (especially the maintainers of those other packages) think about renaming their packages? [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532664#c7 [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name The affected packages are these: antlr 2.7.7-5.fc11 antlr3 3.1.1-7.fc11 automake1.11-2.fc11 automake17 1.7.9-12 glib1:1.2.10-32.fc11 glib2 2.20.5-1.fc11 gtk+1:1.2.10-68.fc11 gtk22.16.6-2.fc11 gtksourceview 1:1.8.5-6.fc11 gtksourceview2 2.6.2-1.fc11 junit 3.8.2-5.4.fc11 junit4 4.5-4.1.fc11 I'm pretty sure this is an incorrect reading of the Guidelines. The Guideline itself 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. One package should use the base name with no versions and all other addons should note their version in the name. There's no reason in there that the older package must have the versioning and the newer package is bare. I'm pretty sure that that was a specific discussion point when we worded the Guidelines like that as well. -Toshio pgpgbN4R4Tvcs.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Old/compat package naming
Hi Lubomir, On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 17:20 +0100, Lubomir Rintel wrote: Hi, Alexander pointed out that I was suggesting a wrong name for Saxon 9 package [1]. In fact there's a couple of packages in repositories now that violate the naming policy [2] in the very same way. Apart from wondering what does Devrim think about renaming the existing saxon package, No objections here. -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE Command Prompt - http://www.CommandPrompt.com devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Old/compat package naming
Hi, Alexander pointed out that I was suggesting a wrong name for Saxon 9 package [1]. In fact there's a couple of packages in repositories now that violate the naming policy [2] in the very same way. Apart from wondering what does Devrim think about renaming the existing saxon package, I'm wondering what do others (especially the maintainers of those other packages) think about renaming their packages? [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532664#c7 [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name The affected packages are these: antlr 2.7.7-5.fc11 antlr3 3.1.1-7.fc11 automake1.11-2.fc11 automake17 1.7.9-12 glib1:1.2.10-32.fc11 glib2 2.20.5-1.fc11 gtk+1:1.2.10-68.fc11 gtk22.16.6-2.fc11 gtksourceview 1:1.8.5-6.fc11 gtksourceview2 2.6.2-1.fc11 junit 3.8.2-5.4.fc11 junit4 4.5-4.1.fc11 Regards, Lubo -- Flash is the Web2.0 version of blink and animated gifs. -- Stephen Smoogen -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Old/compat package naming
Lubomir Rintel (lkund...@v3.sk) said: glib1:1.2.10-32.fc11 glib2 2.20.5-1.fc11 gtk+1:1.2.10-68.fc11 gtk22.16.6-2.fc11 Given the history of these, this sounds like way more work to change than it's worth. (They'd certainly have to still provide 'glib2' and 'gtk2' for many years in the future.) Bill -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
