Drupal provides addition?

[Paul W. Frields]

IIRC, the suggestion that Toshio had wisely made, to resolve the core
package naming and module package naming issue, was that the drupal
package in Fedora (which is named 'drupal' and is version 6.x) include
a virtual Provides:

Provides:  drupal6 = %{version}-%{release}

Jon Ciesla, could you add this and roll it into a package update in
Fedora?  I'm sure any number of us could test it for you since it's
not even a functional change, getting it into stable quickly.

Then people who are packaging D6 modules could simply add this to
their spec files:

Requires: drupal6 >= 6.0

And the same spec files will work continuously throughout Fedora and
EPEL.  (Toshio can correct me if I got his suggestion wrong, in which
case I apologize yet again for being dense about this.)

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
          Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com

[Jon Ciesla]

Paul W. Frields wrote:
>  IIRC, the suggestion that Toshio had wisely made, to resolve the
> core
>  package naming and module package naming issue, was that the drupal
>  package in Fedora (which is named 'drupal' and is version 6.x) include
>  a virtual Provides:
>
>  Provides:  drupal6 = %{version}-%{release}
>
>  Jon Ciesla, could you add this and roll it into a package update in
>  Fedora?  I'm sure any number of us could test it for you since it's
>  not even a functional change, getting it into stable quickly.
>
>  Then people who are packaging D6 modules could simply add this to
>  their spec files:
>
>  Requires: drupal6 >= 6.0
>
>  And the same spec files will work continuously throughout Fedora and
>  EPEL.  (Toshio can correct me if I got his suggestion wrong, in which
>  case I apologize yet again for being dense about this.)
>
>     
Would this then obviate the need for the renaming of the whole stack, or 
complement it?

Sorry for a delay.

-J

-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:36:12AM -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>  Paul W. Frields wrote:
>  > IIRC, the suggestion that Toshio had wisely made, to resolve the core
>  > package naming and module package naming issue, was that the drupal
>  > package in Fedora (which is named 'drupal' and is version 6.x) include
>  > a virtual Provides:
>  >
>  > Provides:  drupal6 = %{version}-%{release}
>  >
>  > Jon Ciesla, could you add this and roll it into a package update in
>  > Fedora?  I'm sure any number of us could test it for you since it's
>  > not even a functional change, getting it into stable quickly.
>  >
>  > Then people who are packaging D6 modules could simply add this to
>  > their spec files:
>  >
>  > Requires: drupal6 >= 6.0
>  >
>  > And the same spec files will work continuously throughout Fedora and
>  > EPEL.  (Toshio can correct me if I got his suggestion wrong, in which
>  > case I apologize yet again for being dense about this.)
>  >
>  >   
>  Would this then obviate the need for the renaming of the whole stack, or 
>  complement it?
>   
I think the idea was supplemental in that earlier Fedora releases were not
going to rename but they would have the virtual provide so that addons could
Require: drupal6 and that would pull in the drupal package when appropriate.

however, the idea of renaming to drupal6 on later Fedora releases wasn't
something I raised in particular so I think that decision is up to you :-)

(IIRC, the argument for renaming was that it would be less work to maintain
a drupal6 package in sync across Fedora and RHEL releases and in parallel
with drupal(5) and eventual drupal7 releases.)

-Toshio

[Jon Ciesla]

Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>  On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:36:12AM -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>    
> > Paul W. Frields wrote:
> >     
> >> IIRC, the suggestion that Toshio had wisely made, to resolve the core
> >> package naming and module package naming issue, was that the drupal
> >> package in Fedora (which is named 'drupal' and is version 6.x) include
> >> a virtual Provides:
> >>
> >> Provides:  drupal6 = %{version}-%{release}
> >>
> >> Jon Ciesla, could you add this and roll it into a package update in
> >> Fedora?  I'm sure any number of us could test it for you since it's
> >> not even a functional change, getting it into stable quickly.
> >>
> >> Then people who are packaging D6 modules could simply add this to
> >> their spec files:
> >>
> >> Requires: drupal6 >= 6.0
> >>
> >> And the same spec files will work continuously throughout Fedora and
> >> EPEL.  (Toshio can correct me if I got his suggestion wrong, in which
> >> case I apologize yet again for being dense about this.)
> >>
> >>   
> >>       
> > Would this then obviate the need for the renaming of the whole stack, or 
> > complement it?
> >
> >     
>  I think the idea was supplemental in that earlier Fedora releases were not
>  going to rename but they would have the virtual provide so that addons could
>  Require: drupal6 and that would pull in the drupal package when appropriate.
>
>  however, the idea of renaming to drupal6 on later Fedora releases wasn't
>  something I raised in particular so I think that decision is up to you :-)
>
>  (IIRC, the argument for renaming was that it would be less work to maintain
>  a drupal6 package in sync across Fedora and RHEL releases and in parallel
>  with drupal(5) and eventual drupal7 releases.)
>
>  -Toshio
>     
Done for F-14 and F-13.  Skipping F-12 due to imminent EOL.

-J

-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

[Jon Ciesla]

Jon Ciesla wrote:
>  Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>    
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:36:12AM -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> >   
> >     
> >> Paul W. Frields wrote:
> >>     
> >>       
> >>> IIRC, the suggestion that Toshio had wisely made, to resolve the core
> >>> package naming and module package naming issue, was that the drupal
> >>> package in Fedora (which is named 'drupal' and is version 6.x)
> include
> >>> a virtual Provides:
> >>>
> >>> Provides:  drupal6 = %{version}-%{release}
> >>>
> >>> Jon Ciesla, could you add this and roll it into a package update in
> >>> Fedora?  I'm sure any number of us could test it for you since it's
> >>> not even a functional change, getting it into stable quickly.
> >>>
> >>> Then people who are packaging D6 modules could simply add this to
> >>> their spec files:
> >>>
> >>> Requires: drupal6 >= 6.0
> >>>
> >>> And the same spec files will work continuously throughout Fedora and
> >>> EPEL.  (Toshio can correct me if I got his suggestion wrong, in which
> >>> case I apologize yet again for being dense about this.)
> >>>
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >>>         
> >> Would this then obviate the need for the renaming of the whole stack, or 
> >> complement it?
> >>
> >>     
> >>       
> > I think the idea was supplemental in that earlier Fedora releases were not
> > going to rename but they would have the virtual provide so that addons could
> > Require: drupal6 and that would pull in the drupal package when appropriate.
> >
> > however, the idea of renaming to drupal6 on later Fedora releases wasn't
> > something I raised in particular so I think that decision is up to you :-)
> >
> > (IIRC, the argument for renaming was that it would be less work to maintain
> > a drupal6 package in sync across Fedora and RHEL releases and in parallel
> > with drupal(5) and eventual drupal7 releases.)
> >
> > -Toshio
> >   
> >     
>  Done for F-14 and F-13.  Skipping F-12 due to imminent EOL.
>
>  -J
>
>     
And rawhide of course. 

-J

-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie