Rob Crittenden wrote:
I did some package searching. -base appears to be much more commonly used than -core for this purpose, and -base seems to connote the basic functionality required in addition to being the base upon which other packages are built.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).
So, I propose fedora-ds-base. Any objections? http://www.us.debian.org/distrib/packages#search_packages
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
