On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 16:03 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > 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? This breaks if upstream ever releases foo-2.6.0.1. Jeremy
