Package Naming Guidlines

[Toshio]

On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 13:06, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Toshio wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 11:30, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > 
> >>Toshio wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>_Guidelines:
> >>>* I don't like the period between release tag and %{disttag} because it
> >>>doesn't really serve its purpose as a separator (The period gets lost in
> >>>the clutter of other periods before and after it.) 
> >>
> >>I think a better justification (other than "I don't like it") must be 
> >>made for this (or any other) change.  It's in production now.  It works. 
> >>  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
> > 
> > 
> > Sorry I wasn't clear.  This is speaking to Warren's Proposal for Fedora
> > Extras which isn't in production yet. 
> 
> And what I am saying is that fedora.us *is* in production now, and it's 
> existing scheme works, and works well, IMO.  Further, again, IMO, any 
> changes to the existing disttag scheme requires more justification than 
> what you've provided so far.
> 
Givens:
1) fedora.us is in production.  It's currently using a working scheme.

2) Warren's made an update proposal that apparently hasn't been accepted
yet as it hasn't changed the documentation or autobuilder yet.

3) The fedora.us autobuilder uses "old-style" for redhat packages and
"new-style" for Fedora Core Releases.

My assumption, which I'll now drop, was that the update proposal would
take effect with a move to fedora.redhat.com

So on the documentation front:  I want the docs to match with the
fedora.us build process so I want to put into the wiki my previous
_Documentation: entries minus the footnote about the change in
%{disttag} names for RHL releases.

On the new proposal front:  I would like to propose that the separator
between release and disttag be changed from a '.' to a '.0' for the
following reasons:

1) It more clearly separates between disttag and the rest of the release
making things more easily parsed by the human eye which is part of the
separator's purpose.

2) It's compatible with current practice (replace = rpm -U <RPM>):
  - foobar-1.0-1.01.i386.rpm will not replace foobar-1.0-1.1.i386.rpm or
vice versa.  
  - Either package can be replaced by either of
foobar-1.0-1.1.94.i386.rpm or foobar-1.0-1.01.94.rpm

-- 
_______S________U________B________L________I________M________E_______
  t  o  s  h  i  o  +  t  i  k  i  -  l  o  u  n  g  e  .  c  o  m
                                                          GA->ME 1999
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20040408/a2cdc1cd/attachment-0002.bin