On 7/10/07, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info> wrote:
On 10.07.2007 17:59, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 08:17:46AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: >> So, I was leaning toward following rpmforge's fftw/fftw3 naming scheme, > Although naming fftw3 the newer version seems acceptable to me, > especially if upstream breaks api now and then, naming the old version > fftw seems wrong to me. [...] >From looking at it at this point of time I tend to agree. Normally I'd say that the latest version of "foo" should always be foo as long as upstream calls it foo (IOW: fftw3 in this case is confusing as upstream calls it fftw). If we ship foo (major-1) I'd expect we'd call it compat-foo or foo(major-1) (e.f. fftw2 in this case). Calling the older one simply foo (fftw) would IMHO be to confusing, as a lot of people that simply want to install "foo" will expect the latest version when they run "yum install foo".
Isnt there something about dropping the compat naming scheme and going to something else? Or am I confused about a different email thread. Here are my best attempts at Solomon The first question I would ask is what are your customers wanting? What packages need a Fast Fourier Transform and what do a majority of customers running on EL want it to be? If the scientific community is using lots of fftw2 versus fftw3 then that might be a good reason to keep to older name schemes. The second question is what is the new packaging name scheme? If the name scheme is still compat-<package>-<major-minor> I would go with that.. if it isnt then I would go with something like: fftw_22 fftw_3x as the name schemes Third I would go for an open and documented reasoning document from both forge and you on why the names are different and how a user would be able to deal with this issue. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"