[Fedora-packaging] SCL in Fedora

[Marcela Mašláňová]

On 01/11/13 13:33, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 11:34:58AM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>>> As a sysadmin, this seems obvious to me. Marcela, can you explain the
>>> reasoning in _not_ doing it?
>> Packages are already unique. They have prefix e.g. ruby193. If we
>> force packagers add scl-ruby193 prefix, would it be more unique?
>
>
> Not just unique in the name-collision aspect, but unique in that:
>
>   1) it's going to be putting files in a different place than a normal rpm
Why should user care about installation path?
>   2) it's going to need to be activated in a special way
Yes, but users has to know about the activation anyway.
>   3) it avoids conflict with possible versioned RPMs packaged in the
>      traditional way
>   4) it was my understanding that SCL spec files could be built as either
>      scls or regular packages. Without the special name, how will one
>      easily tell which it is?
>
Sure, without rubygem-1.2.3 with scl ruby193-rubygem-1.2.3. User has to 
know that he wants ruby193 collection anyway and he has to execute "scl 
enable ruby193", so scl prefix won't give him the knowledge.

I leave space for ideas to other people now, I still see scl prefix as 
ugly and uneccesary.

Marcela