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

Re: Fedora and Fedora Legacy package versioning schemes



Le lun 06/10/2003 à 20:51, Michael Schwendt a écrit :
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:17:14 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> > > > d) Use tags with something larger than "rh", e.g. "tfp" ("The Fedora
> > > >    Project")
> > >
> > > -500
> > > The whole reason why we had those dist tags was because fedora.us (or 
> > > freshrpms, or dag, or axel, etc.) were not official repositories.  Now 
> > > Fedora is official, so I believe we can drop this ugliness that makes 
> > > the package filename unnecessarily longer.
> > 
> > You are talking about the .fdr. tag, e.g. the repo tag. Drop that by
> > all means. I am referring to the disttag like rh9 etc.
> 
> Fedora.us was separate from Red Hat [Linux]. And fedora.us could have
> offered packages for Mandrake Linux (.mdk), for instance. Hence the
> distribution tag to emphasize the target platform.

Well, we've been happily providing mandrake and redhat java packages
without any distributions tags for months at jpackage.

People just put their distro-specific repository entries into apt and
never ever see other packages. Same for ximian (of course for jpackage
it helps 90% of the packages are noarch and have no overlap with
whatever is already in the distributions, but anyway we've never needed
any special flags to differenciate distro-specific packages).

And BTW I'm deeply sceptical about Fedora getting mandrake acceptance
short term. urpmi means the mdk communities had an head start, and we're
only now catching up with apt/yum. RedHat is pretty late in the
community game.

Cheers,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e=2E?=


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