Rob Crittenden wrote:
Hmm - does "base" connotate "standalone"? That is, would someone who installed fedora-ds-base expect to be able to run a complete LDAP server service? Or would they expect that, in addition to "base", they would have to install some additional packages in order to be operational? The same questions apply for "core".Richard Megginson wrote:As we found out the hard way, the new Fedora Extras fedora-ds package conflicts with existing fedora-ds 1.0.x installations. I've triedConflicts: fedora-ds < 1.1 and Conflicts: fedora-ds <= 1.0.4neither one prevents you from installing fedora-ds 1.1 on top of your fedora-ds 1.0.4 installation and removing the admin server and console.I propose that we change the package naming to reflect the actual contents. So, the current fedora-ds 1.1 would be called fedora-ds-core, which is really what it is - the core LDAP server and command line tools - the core functionality.Subsequent packages would follow this convention: fedora-ds-admin, fedora-ds-console, etc. We could then have a fedora-ds "meta package" which had nothing in it but dependencies on fedora-ds-core, fedora-ds-admin, etc. and perhaps a few scripts, so that you could 'yum install fedora-ds' and it would install the same functionality as the fedora-ds 1.0.4 package.I think I'd suggest the name fedora-ds-base. The word 'core' could be confusing to some, esp on non-Fedora platforms. It also aligns itself with another large system broken into pieces, KDE (kdebase kdelibs, etc).
Other synonyms are - "root", "kernel", "crux", and my personal favorite "quintessence"
rob ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Fedora-directory-devel mailing list Fedora-directory-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-devel
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- Fedora-directory-devel mailing list Fedora-directory-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-devel
