Explicit versioning of library names [was Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit]

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 08:07:24AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Sorry, I forgot to reply to this. This was discussed on the thread
> > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-February/179185.html
> > a while ago. The general sense was that we would function as above. I
> > then promptly forgot that the package review hadn't yet been finished
> > for python-django14.
> >
> > I'm about to approve that review, unless this is being deemed
> > unacceptable by FPC (though it's not really in the guidelines).
> >
> Sorry I didn't catch the details of that when it was originally proposed.
>
> There's currently guidelines that would prevent that:
>
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name
>
> "[..]One package should use the base name with no versions and all other
> addons
> should note their version in the name."
>
> After  sending this I saw mrunge's announcement of updating the
python-django package to 1.5 in rawhide and talked to sgallagh on irc.  I
misunderstood the basic plan, so there's no guidelines incompatibility here
:-)

The plan is to release python-djangoVERSION compat packages every time the
main python-django package updates.  The old python-djangoVERSION compat
packages will also be retired when upstream django ends support for that
release.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130404/a2882749/attachment.html>