On 16 July 2012 06:19, Thomas Bendler <ml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2012/6/27 Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> I was looking briefly into packaging some Puppet modules, and I was >> curious if anyone else has gone down this road. >> [...] >> >> Does anyone have suggestions for package naming conventions? It looks >> like the upstream modules include the creators' names as part of the >> package names, which strikes me as a little verbose from the >> perspective of Fedora packaging. > > > I don't think that it make much sense to pack the modules as RPMs. Under > normal circumstances they must be customized in several different locations > and would only produce a lot of *.rpmnew files after upgrades without proper > function test possibilities. The more common way is to organize the modules > in a VCS. This isn't true in all cases. Well written modules shouldn't need customization for use. However, there's a vast array of modules available, with a lot of duplication in functionality, and certainly some would be helpful if packaged as RPMs. I have in mind here some of the puppetlabs modules which will become part of later releases of puppet, for example. As to the original question about naming, I don't think there's any alternative to including the creators' name inthe package name, since there's a lot of different implementations of modules providing similar functionality, and it's useful to know which you're installing. J. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
