package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Vít Ondruch vondruch at redhat.com
Thu Mar 28 08:50:12 UTC 2013


Dne 28.3.2013 09:29, juanmabc napsal(a):
> Just today i check updates, gnome-desktop3 was there, i didn't notice it but
> it is following the gtk3 naming scheme, and, what i think is happening more
> than desired, a lot of packages just kept going doing it.
>
> I see an overuse or exploit or package names vs versions, which both terms are
> very well defined, so should/might do it rpm.
>
> I stated a problem, the solution is open.
> I am proposing a rpm tag:
> - Coexists: package-major
> and/or
> - Coexists: package-major.minor.bugfix
> (whatever fill the technical details),
> in the same spirit that Requires:.
>
> I assume that tag does not exist, otherwise gnome-desktop3 would have a
> coexist with gnome-desktop-2.* and package could be the same.
>
> That fist writing got me to the issue that that would need 2 gnome-desktop.spec
> (just counting 2.x and 3.x) which does not seems right. So the issue may/seems
> deeper and is to be addressed at another level like keeping one gnome.spec but
> being able to provide 2 coexisting versions.
>
> The problem is stated again, the solution is open, hence the post.
>
> Ugly to the eyes as gnome-desktop3 is, should not only be taken aesthetical,
> but highlighting an issue. I hope fedora gets in a direction, hence rpm i
> guess, where packages does not go name weird. Note, an user like me would do
> rpm -qi gnome-desktop and see nothing, yet, guess rpm -qi gnome-desktop3, and
> other lot of nightmares i can seem to oversee at a sight.
>
> Perhaps, gnome-desktop3 will replace gnome-desktop (2.x implicit) i guess,
> perhaps not, funny the package that triggers that discussion is one with such
> a different paradigm that one might want to have both coexisting, fedora could
> take a long time until getting rid of gtk2 or gtk3 naming cause of coexisting.
>
> What do you think, worth the rethinking? Or good reasons to keep like that?
> Just my ramblings, thanks.

I share you sentiment. Actually I was trying to open similar discussion 
several times already. Last time I did here [1].

Vít



[1] 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2012-October/008740.html


More information about the devel mailing list