My apologies for taking so long to reply to this: mail to this list
was ending up in another folder, and I only noticed yesterday.
Carwyn Edwards wrote:
Q1. What are Fedora planning to do in relation to release tag naming
and jpp packages?
At the moment Rawhide is using <jpp version>jpp_<fc version>(fc|rh).
This seems a little at odds with the draft Fedora naming guidelines
(I know they've only just been written in draft :-)).
There are no plans to deviate from the Xjpp_Yfc scheme we are
currently using. We need to keep the Xjpp so that version comparisons
work between JPackage and Fedora packages, and we need the Yfc to
allow Fedora packages to be rebuilt to fix Fedora issues without
requiring a corresponding rebuild in JPackage. This ought to be
documented in the naming guidelines, and I'll look into it.
The motivation for this question is to do with our desire to ship
local modifications to jpp packages and still have a sensible
upgrade path. Up to now I've been able to simply tack on a suffix to
the jpp version. If however another upstream repo (FC) is also using
the suffix approach then things start to get interesting :-)
(1jpp_3fc vs 1jpp.1.local)
I can't see adding another suffix causing a problem.
Q2. Are Fedora going to feed packages upstream as a priority then
tweak them for their local purposes afterwards? Another way of
asking this is - will FC Java packages that could also end up in
JPackage always going to have a Xjpp prefix in the release tag? If
not then things like this can happen:
Yes, they'll always have the tag. Without it version comparisons
between other JPackages would not give the required result. Besides,
no Fedora package can be _identical_ to its corresponding JPackage so
long as JPackages define Vendor tags and the like.
[ gbenson(a)redhat.com ][ I am Red Hat ][ http://inauspicious.org/