On Wednesday 12 July 2006 15:52, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> If you move it to the version you're breaking jpp -> fc upgrade paths
> If you put it as Provides it's ok from the package manager POW but not
> for users (there are reasons why we use long descriptive filenames and
> not DOS-like 8:3 names)
In which ways are we breaking it? jpp has foo-2.6.0-6jpp. Fedora has
foo-2.6.0.6jpp-1.fc6. 2.6.0.6 is rpmnewer than 2.6.0-6, upgrade path exists.
If jpp issues 2.6.0-7jpp, its going to be newer than what FC provides yes,
but do we want users picking up that package? Shouldn't they stay with the
FC provided one? Or do you want it replaced and then replaced again when FC
bumps the package?
So then put it in the name rather than the version.
"Upstream": foo-2.6.0-6jpp
Name: foo-6jpp
Version: 2.6.0
Release: 1%{?dist}
Provides: foo = 2.6.0-6jpp
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgpbtL1iEtMbZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
