package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

[Jan Zelený]

On 28. 3. 2013 at 13:53:15, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 28.3.2013 13:30, Jan Zelený napsal(a):
> > On 28. 3. 2013 at 12:59:44, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >> Dne 28.3.2013 12:09, Florian Festi napsal(a):
> >>> This is done to make life easier for package maintainers.
> >> 
> >> Sorry, you definitely not speak for me! This are just excuses. And I
> >> asked already several times to have some way to reliable support
> >> multiple version of packages without mangling their names.
> > 
> > Víťo,
> > I certainly understand your frustration, as it comes from talking about
> > this topic over and over again. However Ruby community is a *very*
> > special case in this regard and I'd like to treat it as such.
> > 
> > If you want, we can start a discussion here. But if we do, let's keep the
> > discussion strictly constructive and just about *technical* problems.
> > Let's
> > not take this to design level of things, as Ruby and Fedora are two
> > completely different worlds that will never be fully compatible by
> > design. Therefore the final solution (if there is any) has to be some
> > sort of compromise.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Jan
> 
> My point is: "First step to find technical solution for some issue is
> admit that there is some issue".

Exactly my point. I want to find out if there is really a technical or at least 
semi-technical issue or not. Saying "multiple versions of a single package 
should be installable" is a "what", not a "why". We need to figure out the 
"why" if we want to know if there is really an issue that actually needs to be 
addressed.

> It was clearly admitted by "juanmabc" that there is issue, he also made
> proposal how to solve it, but it was immediately dismissed with remark
> of "easier life for package maintainers", which was inappropriate
> generalization from my POV.

Please note that Florian didn't dismiss the idea for no reason, just suggested 
alternative way of thinking that is more convenient. Again, this is about 
looking for "why" instead of "what".

> I understand that everybody of us has a lot of thinks to do. That is not
> reason for dismiss such idea. At the end, one more or less item on TODO
> list makes no difference.

At this moment it's not about an item on TODO list. It's still about finding if 
there is in fact anything worth adding to the TODO list.

Thanks
Jan