[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Package Naming Guidlines



Hi all,

I have some comments on DistTags in the Naming Guidelines.  Regarding
both existing Documentation on fedora.us and Warren's proposed
guidelines.

Reference link:
http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines

_Documentation:
* Neither Warren's Proposal or the fedora.us Naming Guidelines mention
that the disttag is generated by the buildsystem on fedora.us.  I'd like
to add the following near the top of the section:

Note: If you are building packages for fedora.us, you should not
manually add a %{disttag} to the spec files.  The buildsystem (and mach,
on which it is based) automatically appends the proper %{disttag} when
the package is built for the target platform.  Instead, be sure to
mention the correct distributions to build for in the package submission
KEYWORDS field.

* Fedora.us is using a slightly older verion of the Guidelines than
Warren's October proposal to this list.  I would like to add the
following table modified slightly from Warren's October proposal:
Dist Tag for Normal Packages:

Dist Tag for Normal Packages:
	0.fdr.%{X}.%{disttag}
Where %{X} is the vepoch and %{disttag} is a distribution tag from the
following table:
rh73 Red Hat Linux 7.3  [*]
rh80 Red Hat Linux 8    [*]
rh90 Red Hat Linux 9    [*]
1    Fedora Core 1
1.93 Fedora Core 1.93 Beta
1.94 Fedora Core 1.94 beta
2    Fedora Core 2

[*] These %{disttags} will be changed when fedora.us is merged into
    Fedora Extras.  The new numbering scheme is 0.7.3, 0.8, and 0.9
    respectively.

* I'd like to remove the "Dist Tag for Red Hat Linux Betas" section as
it appears to me that we are using the new numbering scheme for the
Fedora Core Betas and there are no packages in the repository for the
RHL Betas.

_Guidelines:
* I don't like the period between release tag and %{disttag} because it
doesn't really serve its purpose as a separator (The period gets lost in
the clutter of other periods before and after it.)  The other
traditional separator character in files '-' is already allocated in
RPMs.  So how about using a multi-character separator like '.0'?

foobar-0.1-1.00.7.3.src.rpm For RH7.3
foobar-0.1-1.00.9.src.rpm   For RH9
foobar-0.1-1.01.src.rpm     For FC1
foobar-0.1-1.01.94.src.rpm  For FC Beta 1.94
foobar-0.1-1.010.src.rpm    For FC10

I would argue that this is not as ugly as '_', more readable than
foobar-0.1-1.1.94.src.rpm, and still works for corner cases.

-Toshio
-- 
_______S________U________B________L________I________M________E_______
  t  o  s  h  i  o  +  t  i  k  i  -  l  o  u  n  g  e  .  c  o  m
                                                          GA->ME 1999

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]