Le Jeu 15 janvier 2009 00:53, Jens Petersen a écrit : > > ----- "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The draft is available here: >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_% >> 282009-01-13%29 > > Sorry but this is not a good idea IMO. BTW I think Jens objects strongly because he did not see some of the horrific naming changes FPC proposed first, which would have resulted in mass srpm renames and totally un-obvious srpm name -> rpm name mappings. (and we use srpm names to reference packages in all our infra tools) The current FPC-approved draft is a lot saner and does not require too much implementing work I think: 1. it does not change existing font srpm names at all, except for - the handful of packages that didn't respect strictly the previous semi-official naming guidelines (I write semi-official because even though no explicit font naming guideline was written down a naming style was suggested in official font spec templates) - the handfuls of packages which didn't use foundryname prefixes when they could (and we'd planned to make them change them anyway since having some packages with this prefix and others without was confusing to users and packagers) 2. does change font subpackage names slightly for font subpackages of font srpms. I've pushed a new fontpackages-* rpm set (templates and macros) to rawhide that minimizes the changes needed to existing font specs to adapt to FPC naming (only %package and %description lines) Of course packagers will still have to add Obsoletes manually, plus some sort of Provides transition for the few font packages that other packages depend on Actual subpackage content and internal file layout didn't change. 3. Clarifies the font subpackage naming for font subpackages of non-font srpms. Well since there was no clear convention before, and inconsistent naming practices, any clear naming guideline was going to require changes in most packages. I've adapted the macros to force the FPC naming rules in that case. WARNING 2. and 3. mean that trying to rebuild a srpm with font subpackages in rawhide without doing the small spec changes entailed by the new naming rules adopted by As a test I've rebuilt a few font packages on my system, and changed bitstream vera in rawhide, to verify it works in koji (it does), and to provide people an example of what the renaming entails in practice for a non-trivial font package. Sincerely, -- Nicolas Mailhot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
