On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:01:55AM +0200, clime wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 10:35, Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:22:38AM +0200, clime wrote: > > > On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 09:40, Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 06:51:36AM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > > > Yes. Putting the "stream identification" into the package name is the > > > > > most natural solution, and has been floated various times. > > > > > > > > This already happens. But not in Fedora. In RHEL, modular packages have > > > > Modularitylabel RPM tag that carries the module name and stream. > > > > > > Does "ModularityLabel" actually propagates to rpm package name or is > > > it just a "hidden" rpm attribute? > > > > > It's a RPM tag as well as a package name or a package version are the RPM > > tags. I don't understand your question. > > Well, the original sentence was: "Putting the "stream identification" > into the package *name* is the most natural solution". > > And the answer was: "This already happens. But not in Fedora. In RHEL, ..." > > But my question was answered, thank you. > I see. I focused on having the stream information on RPM level. Then the answer is no, the package name does not contain the information. My idea was that DNF could discriminate the same-name package using the ModularityLabel tag instead of relying on modulemd documents delivered in the repository metadata. -- Petr
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
