Dawid Gajownik wrote:
Dnia 08/27/2005 12:48 AM, Użytkownik Mike A. Harris napisał:
Hi!
Proposal:
~~~~~~~~
Here is my initial proposal for naming the src.rpms, along with
brief rationale, and the real (or perceived) advantages and
disadvantages:
xorg-x11-driver-<type>-<name>
I don't have any rights to decide but this pattern looks very good
to me :)
I'm curious how do you want to pack other tarballs? When I first saw
this → http://xorg.freedesktop.org/X11R7.0-RC0/everything/ I was a bit
shocked ;-O
Yes, it looks a bit intimidating at first. ;o) It's been a long time
coming however, and very highly welcomed by the overwhelming majority
of the X development community. ;o) The monolith has lived a long
life, as has Imake, but I don't think many people feel sad to see both
of them go away. ;o)
(technically "imake" itself is still provided for 3rd parties to use,
although xorg modular no longer uses it)
Do you plan to have each bz2 archive in its own src.rpm or make
packages using this names → http://xorg.freedesktop.org/X11R7.0-RC0/
For example:
xorg-x11-app
xorg-x11-data
xorg-x11-doc
xorg-x11-font
xorg-x11-lib, etc.
First solution gives more flexibility to the end user - (s)he can
install only necessary pacakges. The only disadvantage of this proposal
I can see right now may be upgrade process from FC4 to FC5. It may take
some time to write proper Provides/Obsoletes in spec files so yum could
handle upgrade without a problem.
Stay tuned... I'll be posting more about X.Org modularization throughout
the next few weeks. These questions and more will be answered probably
on a public facing webpage somewhere once we work out the details, etc.
Thanks for your feedback!
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
