On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 10:11, Warren Togami wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am planing to release a couple of rpms which are supposed to be add-on > > packages to Fedora Core and/or Fedora Extras. > > > > What is the current convention on choosing rpm release tags for such > > packages to provide co-existence for such kind of packages? > > > > AFAIS, from freshrpms, livna, atrpms none there doesn't seem to exist > > such kind of convention. Conversely, all seem to be designed "to take > > over the system". > > > > http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackageSubmissionQAPolicy > http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines > If you follow these rules you generally will not clash with FC packages, > but it takes a little practice to get it right. The other volunteers > will help you if you make mistakes, so don't worry. It would help if > you submit your packages to fedora.us QA just so other people know it > exists. (That process will NOT become easier when the SCM goes online, > because only trusted & proven developers will have any checkin access at > all, while everyone else must earn that trust through demonstrated hard > work and dedication.) > Some background info: I have a local repository of locally built RPMs, I am considering some of them for submission to Fedora.Us/Extra/Legacy and some of them for submission to 3rd party repositories, e.g. because some of them are of too little general interest. Therefore I want to choose these rpms release tags in such a way that they "play it nicely" with Fedora Core and Fedora Extras. I.e. I want choose my rpm tags in such a way, that Fedora Core/Updates/Extras/Legacy packages shall replace my rpms once Fedora Core/Updates/Extras/Legacy should release the same packages. > I assume you mean by "taking over the system" you mean replacing > packages that are within the core distribution? I meant co-existence of packages from different origins (mixing Fedora Core and Extras with 3rd party sources of RPMs). > fedora.us and livna > does not do that at all. Theoretical example: Suppose the legal situation of a package changes, and you would consider to move this package from Livna to Fedora Extras. How would you deal with that? ATM, Fedora/Stable uses 0.fdr.x.1, Livna uses 0.lvn.y.1. RPM-wise, a package using 0.lvn* will always be greater than a package using 0.fdr*. Now, you could increase the Epoch for the fdr package - Not necessarily a good solution, IMHO. You could increase the actual "release number" (use 1.fdr.*) - AFAIU, this would contradict the Fedora.US versioning policy, because it would cause problems with Fedora Core. > The other 3rd party repositories are > controlled by single persons and they generally do whatever they want > unilaterally, for better or worse. That's why I am looking for "the better solution". Or to bring it to the point: Which release-tag do you (Fedora US) recommend for my purposes? Ralf
