> I believe we can sanely and easily choose naming on a case-by-case > basis. We only need to follow precedent. This is not a problem. Wouldn't the precedent be the existing rh7.3, rh8.0, rh9 tags? > We disagree about having ".legacy" at the end. I personally don't see a > problem in having a longer filename since it *should* be handled > automatically by tools. I believe we should have it for two reasons: > > 1) Clear separation between the official RH/FC updates and Legacy updates. Ok, I can understand that. But instead of legacy, why not flrh7.3, flrh8.0, flrh9? > 2) Repository tags are encouraged for all non-FC and non-FE repositories. Yup > I suppose we could have a shorter abbreviation of legacy, but I can't > think of anything that looks good. Shorter is good, but I'm still lobbying heavily for some semblance of which RH OS the RPM was meant for in the filename. -Chuck -- Quantum Linux Laboratories - ACCELERATING Business with Open Technology * Education | -=^ Ad Astra Per Aspera ^=- * Integration | http://www.quantumlinux.com * Support | chuckw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "You know what you get after putting 30 years into a company? You're looking at it." -Downsized CIO of a major insurance carrier.
