upcoming mach 0.4.3 release

[Matthias Saou]

Thomas Vander Stichele wrote :

> The upcoming 0.4.3 release of mach will finally have Fedora Core 1
> building support.  It will also have n/v/r parsing based on the build
> options (since, for example, Matthias Saou used some variables to
> construct the Source tags).

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one doing "flexible and sensible" stuff in
the spec headers. Call that "funky" if you prefer, though :-)

> There was support added to CVS by some others.  I changed some things
> though, one of which is the basename for the distribution, which is why
> I'm mailing.  I've changed it to fedoracore-1-i386.  Compare this to
> (for rh9) redhat-9-i386.

I don't have any strong objections to "fedoracore-1-i386", but another
suggestions would be "fedora-1-i386-core" with the others called
"fedora-1-i386-extras", "fedora-1-i386-freshrpms", etc. which would all
inherit core, as that is what "Core" is all about, it's the base set of
packages on which all the rest must rely, so it can get pretty implicit
IMHO.

> Also, I had asked Matthias to symlink his RPMS.core to RPMS.os to be in
> line with fedora.us, though I've been told fedora.us might change
> themselves from RPMS.os to RPMS.core; this allows people to choose to
> get Fedora Core RPMS from either freshrpms or fedora.us (Since at work
> we have a freshrpms local mirror, I'm forced to using that one :))

Well, I went for "core" as I felt it would be more consistent with all the
other bits and pieces that were to follow like "freshrpms", "extras",
"alternatives". The ones I'm not really satisfied with are "updates" (as
they concern only "core") and "tupdates", the testing update. This is
mainly as I don't know if all other additional modules will be released
sets (like "powertools" were, with updates later on) or moving targets
(like most add-on repositories including freshrpms currently are, where
there are no separate updates, but where the main set get constantly
updated instead). I'd need to gather more information, see it discussed
here or just wait'n see I guess.

> Since the actual distro released is Fedora Core 1, however, and I'm
> assuming there might be releases of other sets (say, Fedora Freeworld 1)
> which might have another base, I wanted to make it explicit that this is
> fedoracore and not fedora.

Do you mean that when referring to "Fedora", it would be the whole addition
of all available modules, including core? I guess it does make sense, as
"Fedora" alone already has it's short history of confusion, and that it'll
take some consistency in the chosen direction in order to change that.

> I could be persuaded to change this before the release, but I want to
> make sure people understand why I chose this for now and that I don't
> intend to change it anymore after the release...

Well, probably as the n°1 annoying bug reporter for mach you've had so far,
I think I'd prefer "fedora-1-i386-core", eventually with an alias of "f1c"
or "fc1" instead of "fedoracore-1-i386". Seems it would make more sense for
the other modules, as they wouldn't contain the irrelevant (well, ok,
unuseful) "core" information in their name if they were then
"fedora-1-i386-freshrpms" instead of "fedoracore-1-i386-freshrpms".

Minor issue, cosmetic nonsense, being picky... whatever :-)

Matthias

-- 
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 1 (Yarrow) - Linux kernel 2.4.22-1.2129.nptl
Load : 1.00 0.90 0.83