Re: Explicit versioning of library names [was Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit]

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

 



On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 10:53:53AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 4.4.2013 20:07, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a):
> >
> >There is also an unwritten (I think it's unwritten.  A quick search didn't
> >find it in the guidelines) rule that in Fedora, the current version of the
> >library carries the base name.  Older libraries carry the version in the name.
> 
> Interesting ... it seems time is changing. I made several attempts to
> make this unwritten rule to be written, the last wrap up and my
> latest proposal can be found here: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2012-October/008740.html
> 
Your proposals keep failing because they run contrary to the unwritten
rules rather than canonifying them.

-Toshio

Attachment: pgp5Z6PNgoSi2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

-- 
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