On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 12:28:01PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 5.4.2013 22:03, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a): > >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. > > May be I missing something, but what is different in > > >Always consider to let a nonversioned package to follow an upstream > >release versions. The other versions of package kept in Fedora for > >compatibility reasons should be either prefixed by compat- prefix or > >their name should be suffixed by version string. > > > contrary to > > > the current version of the library carries the base name. Older > libraries carry the version in the name. > Your usage of compat- is contrary to the unwritten rule. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpFRqeCZVlcF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
