Le jeudi 13 juillet 2006 à 20:42 -0400, Fernando Nasser a écrit :
Hi Fernando,
> Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 16:58 -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> >
> >> And for what? What are the technical advantages that will be obtained
> >> with this change? If we knew what effect wants to be obtained we could
> >> perhaps think together in a better way to solve it.
> >
> > Consistency, cleanliness, and organization.
> >
>
> All subjectibve concepts.
>
> As it should be clear from this thread, several of us consider the
> current approach the one thagt provide "Consistency, cleanliness, and
> organization".
>
> So, as I suspected, no technical reasons.
Fedora current naming guidelines try to address several mistakes
packagers (even @rh packagers) used to do, mistakes which resulted in
broken yum upgrade paths and epoch inflation. (it's true most of the
people which have been complaining there seem to have completely
forgotten the guidelines original technical aims to remember only the
æsthetical side-effects).
My personal opinion at this point is the only sane technical solution is
to have release defined as %{jpackage_release}%{fedora_release} in the
java package case.
However %{upstream_release} may need some work. JPackage is using some
constructs Fedora and RHEL used to have but won't anymore (nothing
dangerous or utterly broken as far as I can see, since JPP is very
yum/urpmi/apt-aware). I feel the way Fedora formalised it is a tad
better)
IMHO JPP should just steal a page from Fedora and use the Fedora
Guidelines, replacing the final %{dist} by hardcoded .jpp or jpp
But I don't have any prescription power be it at Fedora or JPackage, so
do as you think is best. You're doing a great job BTW, it's a pleasure
to peek at the project every few months and see how it evolves.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
