Le mardi 08 fÃvrier 2005 Ã 23:39 +0100, Dag Wieers a Ãcrit : > On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > Le lundi 07 fÃvrier 2005 Ã 23:59 +0100, Axel Thimm a Ãcrit : > > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 10:34:10PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > > Do you imagine the mess if ~ 1000 java-something hit rawhide ? Because > > > > we have this number of java packages in jpackage. > > > > > > Regardless of naming issues, are indeed 1000 packages waiting to be > > > imported into rawhide? I.e. will all of jpackage be imported? > > > > I don't think so (who knows;) > > But if the java-xx virus caughts on we'd have to preemptively rename a > > lot of stuff just in case it gets imported someday (to avoid packagename > > conflicts later) > > > > Not fun at all;( > > Well, that's why a policy should have been made at the very start. Naming > is very important and the lack of a naming policy is causing all sorts of > confusions and problems (like the lack of a 'virtual package' namespace). The point that you seem to miss of course is the "very start" was several years ago for jpackage. Moreover jpackage is not a pure FC pipe - its release schedule is not synched with FC's at all. Even if only say 25% of the packages were to be changed they're likely to be core packages with mass rebuilds as the result to fix requires in the rest of the repo. For a win that's dubious at best given the platform fragmentation. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
