RFC: X.Org X11 modularization project - rpm package driver naming
Mike A. Harris
mharris at redhat.com
Sat Aug 27 10:10:18 UTC 2005
Dawid Gajownik wrote:
> Dnia 08/27/2005 12:48 AM, Użytkownik Mike A. Harris napisał:
>
> Hi!
>
>> Proposal:
>> ~~~~~~~~
>> Here is my initial proposal for naming the src.rpms, along with
>> brief rationale, and the real (or perceived) advantages and
>> disadvantages:
>>
>> xorg-x11-driver-<type>-<name>
>
>
> I don't have any rights to decide but this pattern looks very good
> to me :)
>
> I'm curious how do you want to pack other tarballs? When I first saw
> this → http://xorg.freedesktop.org/X11R7.0-RC0/everything/ I was a bit
> shocked ;-O
Yes, it looks a bit intimidating at first. ;o) It's been a long time
coming however, and very highly welcomed by the overwhelming majority
of the X development community. ;o) The monolith has lived a long
life, as has Imake, but I don't think many people feel sad to see both
of them go away. ;o)
(technically "imake" itself is still provided for 3rd parties to use,
although xorg modular no longer uses it)
> Do you plan to have each bz2 archive in its own src.rpm or make
> packages using this names → http://xorg.freedesktop.org/X11R7.0-RC0/
> For example:
> xorg-x11-app
> xorg-x11-data
> xorg-x11-doc
> xorg-x11-font
> xorg-x11-lib, etc.
>
> First solution gives more flexibility to the end user - (s)he can
> install only necessary pacakges. The only disadvantage of this proposal
> I can see right now may be upgrade process from FC4 to FC5. It may take
> some time to write proper Provides/Obsoletes in spec files so yum could
> handle upgrade without a problem.
Stay tuned... I'll be posting more about X.Org modularization throughout
the next few weeks. These questions and more will be answered probably
on a public facing webpage somewhere once we work out the details, etc.
Thanks for your feedback!
More information about the devel
mailing list