On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 16:56, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 03:44:53PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > The main idea is to have a scheme that does not apply to the scope of > > > this one distribution and this current time window. It should apply on > > > FC, RHL, RHEL and why not Mandrake/SuSE, whatever. > > In an ideal world, yes. > > > > But I have given in hope vendors can agree on a common naming scheme > > Why? It hasn't even been proposed/tried, yet. And it is too early to > propose it, but it can be taken account for to not blcok this path. > > > > So the general stance is to have a suffux to the release tag > > > containing an rpm-sortable disttag and an optional repotag, like > > > > > > foo-1.2.3-4.rh9.ralf.src.rpm > > > > AFAICT, this approach considers upgrades between distros, but it does > > not consider replacing RH supplied Core packages or nor replacing > > Fedora.US supplied packages nor does it consider replacing "local > > packages" with Fedora.US supplied packages. > > I am not sure, what this means. The repotag can be used as an > indicator about which packages in your system come from where (there > are other ways apart from versioning/naming to achieve this). Exactly. > If a repo choses to replace some part of the base distribution for > some reason, it is in the responsibility of the repo to do so in a way > as to not break anything and ensure future upgrade paths either by > hierarchical build tags for automatically being replaced by newer > vendor releases, or commitment to a community SLA. Exactly, that's what I am trying to achieve. > > > A solution used by currently most free repos is to have "rh" for RHL > > > and "rhfc" for FC. > > Hmm? Fedora uses 0.fdr.<...>.1 , freshrpms used fr and now seems to have > > switched to using 'fc1.fr', you seem to be using rhfc, packman (No FC1 > > rpms there yet, but I am involved there) uses '<vendor-release>.pm', ... > > finally there are Ximian and JPackage ... and ... > > most != all ;) > Other than ATrpms rhfc1 is currently used by DAG, PlanetCCRMA, spc, > dries, biorpms, and probably more. OK, ok, ... :-) > > * FC2 ships perl-XML-LibXML-Common-0.13-5.i386.rpm > > * Thereofore I'd expect a potential FC1-Extras/Legacy package to be > > named perl-XML-LibXML-Common-0.13-0.fdr.5.1.i386.rpm. > > > > Now, which release-tag to use for my "temporary legacy package"? > > > > As it seems to me, the only functional solution for my purposes is: > > perl-XML-LibXML-Commmon-0.13-0.fdr.5.<char><*>.1.rpm > > > > For example: > > perl-XML-LibXML-Common-0.13.0-0.fdr.5.ralf.1.1.rpm > > Is this a simple backport? It's even simpler: It is just a rebuilt FC2 package. I.e. it would make the "classical case" of a Fedora.US Legacy package. Michael's remark "sign Ville's proposal" however, makes me wonder if Red Hat and Fedora.US actually have an official policy on such packages. His remark makes doubt it :( > BTW that package already exists: > # apt-cache policy perl-XML-LibXML-Common > perl-XML-LibXML-Common: > Installed: (none) > Candidate: 0.13-2.rhfc1.dag > Version Table: > 0.13-2.rhfc1.dag 0 > 995 http://apt.sw.be redhat/fc1/en/i386/dag pkglist > 0.13-1.rhfc1.dag 0 > 995 http://apt.sw.be redhat/fc1/en/i386/dag pkglist I am well aware perl-XML-LibXML-Common exists at various places (Even I have a local one), but ... it now is part of FC2 and there exists a proposal for Fedora.US/FC1 ... Ralf
