Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 03/28/2013 03:26 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:

To throw an opinion into the pot, I like the current system. It makes
perfect sense to me to consider 'gnome-desktop' and 'gnome-desktop3' to
be two different things, 'autoconf' and 'autoconf213' as two different
things, and so on and so forth. Conceptually that's what they are.

This reminds me of the MySQL/MariaDB situation--several similar but slightly different issues:

- both packages own the same files (file name overlap)

- at the same time packages are not identical and have unique files too

- some applications require 'a' database but don't care which one

- for historical reasons dependencies have a specific requirement (normally mysql) even though the package would work with either one

- and of course it's possible that a package might require a specific dependency
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux