Le mercredi 12 juillet 2006 à 14:47 -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway a écrit : > On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 15:18 -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote: > > Jesse Keating wrote: > > All Java releases for RHEL have been done this way, by adding _NNrh to > > whatever the upstream JPackage EVR was with success. > > For Fedora 3 and Fedora package a _NNfc was adopted. Gary Benson used > > to have a document describing it, which I thought lived in Fedora pages > > somewhere. > > > > There are hundreds of Java packages there, all rebuilt from upstream > > JPackage.org, shipped on Fedora for a couple of years with this EVR > > convention. > > Perhaps its time to revisit this. Yes, it will be painful, but the way > that these packages are named is painful. So you're arguing to break technical features just because you find the current naming ugly ? How about working on a less-ugly naming with the same characteristics > > W.r.t. the suffix added after the upstream EVR it does not really > > matter. > > If this is indeed the case, lets drop it altogether. Adding this suffix > (and the jpp naming) is merely going to cause rpm confusion down the > road. I think it's been used long enough on a packageset big enough to show this is not the case -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
