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

Re: Old/compat package naming

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 05:34:40PM +0100, Lubomir Rintel wrote:
> Hi,
> Alexander pointed out that I was suggesting a wrong name for Saxon 9
> package [1]. In fact there's a couple of packages in repositories now
> that violate the naming policy [2] in the very same way. Apart from
> wondering what does Devrim think about renaming the existing saxon
> package, I'm wondering what do others (especially the maintainers of
> those other packages) think about renaming their packages?
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532664#c7
> [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name
> The affected packages are these:
> antlr           2.7.7-5.fc11
> antlr3          3.1.1-7.fc11
> automake        1.11-2.fc11
> automake17      1.7.9-12
> glib            1:1.2.10-32.fc11
> glib2           2.20.5-1.fc11
> gtk+            1:1.2.10-68.fc11
> gtk2            2.16.6-2.fc11
> gtksourceview   1:1.8.5-6.fc11
> gtksourceview2  2.6.2-1.fc11
> junit           3.8.2-5.4.fc11
> junit4          4.5-4.1.fc11
I'm pretty sure this is an incorrect reading of the Guidelines.  The
Guideline itself says:
For many reasons, it is sometimes advantageous to keep multiple versions of
a package in Fedora to be installed simultaneously. When doing so, the
package name should reflect this fact. One package should use the base name
with no versions and all other addons should note their version in the name. 

There's no reason in there that the older package must have the versioning
and the newer package is bare.  I'm pretty sure that that was a specific
discussion point when we worded the Guidelines like that as well.


Attachment: pgpL0iadn2vBT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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