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_packag...
The affected packages are these:
antlr 2.7.7-5.fc11
antlr3 3.1.1-7.fc11
automake 1.11-2.fc11
automake17 1.7.9-12
glib 1:1.2.10-32.fc11
glib2 2.20.5-1.fc11
gtk+ 1:1.2.10-68.fc11
gtk2 2.16.6-2.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