RFC: X.Org X11 modularization project - rpm package driver naming

[Mike A. Harris]

Dawid Gajownik wrote:
> Dnia 08/27/2005 12:48 AM, Użytkownik Mike A. Harris napisał:
> 
> Hi!
> 
>> Proposal:
>> ~~~~~~~~
>> Here is my initial proposal for naming the src.rpms, along with
>> brief rationale, and the real (or perceived) advantages and
>> disadvantages:
>>
>> xorg-x11-driver-<type>-<name>
> 
> 
>     I don't have any rights to decide but this pattern looks very good 
> to me :)
> 
>     I'm curious how do you want to pack other tarballs? When I first saw 
> this → http://xorg.freedesktop.org/X11R7.0-RC0/everything/ I was a bit 
> shocked ;-O

Yes, it looks a bit intimidating at first.  ;o)  It's been a long time
coming however, and very highly welcomed by the overwhelming majority
of the X development community.  ;o)  The monolith has lived a long
life, as has Imake, but I don't think many people feel sad to see both
of them go away.  ;o)

(technically "imake" itself is still provided for 3rd parties to use,
although xorg modular no longer uses it)

>     Do you plan to have each bz2 archive in its own src.rpm or make 
> packages using this names → http://xorg.freedesktop.org/X11R7.0-RC0/
> For example:
>         xorg-x11-app
>         xorg-x11-data
>         xorg-x11-doc
>         xorg-x11-font
>         xorg-x11-lib, etc.
> 
>     First solution gives more flexibility to the end user - (s)he can 
> install only necessary pacakges. The only disadvantage of this proposal 
> I can see right now may be upgrade process from FC4 to FC5. It may take 
> some time to write proper Provides/Obsoletes in spec files so yum could 
> handle upgrade without a problem.

Stay tuned... I'll be posting more about X.Org modularization throughout
the next few weeks.  These questions and more will be answered probably
on a public facing webpage somewhere once we work out the details, etc.

Thanks for your feedback!