[Fedora-packaging] SCL in Fedora

[Stanislav Ochotnicky]

Quoting Toshio Kuratomi (2013-11-01 17:33:56)
> scl-python2.6-requests -- My preferred name for the scl packaged requests
>     module as it actually removes the redundant information (we already know
>     this is a python module) instead of the helpful information (now we know
>     that this is a package that is part of an scl).  This is can be
>     expressed via a change to the proposed Guidelines.  Instead of
>     specifying that general scl package names must be
>     %{scl_prefix}python-foo we can specify that scl package names can be
>     %{scl_prefix}foo.  I think we'll need to reference the addon package
>     naming guidelines to explain how people should do this.
> 
>     Something like: In general, Name is constructed by prepending scl_prefix
>     to the existing package name like this [example].  However, to avoid
>     redundancy, addon packages should remove the information that is
>     already present in the scl_prefix like this:
>       # If scl_prefix is scl-python2.6 then
>       %if %{scl_prefix}
>       Name: %{scl_prefix}foo
>       %else
>       Name: python-foo
>       %endif

That is exactly why I think removing prefix is a bad idea. It complicates
already complex spec files even further for not good reason except aesthetics.
Not to mention complicating guidelines. We *know* people have a hard time
following current guidelines. Do you honestly believe they will be able to
follow something like "Do X unless Y is set, but if Z is set together with Y do
Q"? We should try hard to keep guidelines simple to the core. Best practices are
one thing, guidelines are something else.

Also newsflash: most users don't care how the RPMs are named. They care if the RPMs
fulfill their needs.

-- 
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky at redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Developer Experience

PGP: 7B087241
Red Hat Inc.                               http://cz.redhat.com