RE: Vendor created RPM naming.

["Wichmann, Mats D" <mats d wichmann intel com>]

If you felt like justifying your choices by following an actual published guideline, you could look here

(see in particular the 4th bullet which matches what you're already doing).

 

http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/pkgnameconv.html

 

 

 

---

From: rpm-list-bounces redhat com [mailto:rpm-list-bounces redhat com] On Behalf Of Ace Nimrod
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:55 AM
To: rpm-list redhat com
Subject: Vendor created RPM naming.

We provide our product as a set of RPMs for RedHat 4/CentOS 4 (and soon 5) and we require some RPMs that are upgrades of the base RPMs.  To prevent conflicts we install all our packages in /opt/<vendorname> and prefix all RPM packages with <vendorname>.  This will prevent us from overwriting any other RPMs, as well as RPMs overwriting ours.

Is this sane?

So for example, we provide our own foobar package which is an upgrade to foobar in CentOS 4, we'd name it like..
  <myvendor>.foobar-1.2.3-1.el4

Is there a better approach to take with this?  So far it seems to work just fine.

Thanks.