Just today i check updates, gnome-desktop3 was there, i didn't notice it but
it is following the gtk3 naming scheme, and, what i think is happening more
than desired, a lot of packages just kept going doing it.
I see an overuse or exploit or package names vs versions, which both terms are
very well defined, so should/might do it rpm.
I stated a problem, the solution is open.
I am proposing a rpm tag:
- Coexists: package-major
- Coexists: package-major.minor.bugfix
(whatever fill the technical details),
in the same spirit that Requires:.
I assume that tag does not exist, otherwise gnome-desktop3 would have a
coexist with gnome-desktop-2.* and package could be the same.
That fist writing got me to the issue that that would need 2 gnome-desktop.spec
(just counting 2.x and 3.x) which does not seems right. So the issue may/seems
deeper and is to be addressed at another level like keeping one gnome.spec but
being able to provide 2 coexisting versions.
The problem is stated again, the solution is open, hence the post.
Ugly to the eyes as gnome-desktop3 is, should not only be taken aesthetical,
but highlighting an issue. I hope fedora gets in a direction, hence rpm i
guess, where packages does not go name weird. Note, an user like me would do
rpm -qi gnome-desktop and see nothing, yet, guess rpm -qi gnome-desktop3, and
other lot of nightmares i can seem to oversee at a sight.
Perhaps, gnome-desktop3 will replace gnome-desktop (2.x implicit) i guess,
perhaps not, funny the package that triggers that discussion is one with such
a different paradigm that one might want to have both coexisting, fedora could
take a long time until getting rid of gtk2 or gtk3 naming cause of coexisting.
What do you think, worth the rethinking? Or good reasons to keep like that?
Just my ramblings, thanks.