Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 10/15/2010 06:02 AM, Sven Lankes wrote:
> Fedora has a bunch of drupal-modules called drupal-modulename with a
> version of 6.x-1.2 (which is what upstream uses to show that this is for
> the drupal 6 range).
>
I was a bit over-cautious when I saw the "X" in the versioning. I spoke
to several folks over in #fedora-devel which raised the concern that the
X might have problems down the road if they ever changed the X to a number.
> Eric suggests in the review [1] that I call the package
> drupal6-flexinode-1.2 instead of drupal-flexinode-6.x-1.2 - but that
> name would only work for EPEL as the other drupal modules which are
> already in Fedora are following the 6.x-1.2 naming scheme.
>
If this is already being done on other packages (I didn't look) then
perhaps keeping the same throughout would be a good thing.
Personally I'm not a fan of maintaining the same package with different
names. Just doesn't feel like a good solution to me.
> I'm not very experienced wrt. EPEL packaging so I may be missing best
> practices here but having a completely separate drupal stack for EPEL
> (with two reviews per package ...) feels very wrong to me.
>
> Not sure how feasible it is wrt. the progress of fedora insight but I'd
> think that the best way forward would be to leave EL-5 on Drupal 5,
> update the drupal package in EL-6 to Drupal 6.
>
> [1]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=642856
> [2]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569833
>
>
- --Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=DJFy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
logistics mailing list
logistics(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
Personally, I'd keep to the same conventions regarding X as in existing
modules.
WRT separate drupal stacks, with two reviews per package, is a necessary
evil, at least for EL-5. I'm also wondering if we should put the drupal
5 stack in EL-6 as well as the drupal6 stack. It's not simply the same
package with different names, it's got entirely different Requires and
file placement to allow it to be installed in parallel, allowing
Enterprise users to upgrade at their own pace, which is more in keeping
with the mission of RHEL/CentOS/EPEL, as opposed to Fedora, where you
can say "Ok, as of F-XX, you're upgrading your Drupal install to Drupal
7. Period."
Good to ask the question, though, Sven, and I totally get where you're
coming from.
-J
--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie