2006/3/29, Peter Jones <pjones@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 15:37 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:47:50 -0500, Peter Jones wrote: > > > > > > No pattern. Core package developers can do what they want, and some of > > > > them still don't seem to care that .fc3 is "newer than" .FC5 in RPM > > > > version comparison. > > > > > > That's a bit of an exaggeration. It's not that we don't care, it's that > > > it doesn't matter unless you're doing something *else* really dumb at > > > the same time as *switching* between those two nomenclatures. > > > > > > *yawn*. > > > > No need to yawn. :) It has happened before that a package from Core was > > moved to Extras or vice versa, and then you get the "switching" in updates > > unless the different packagers agree on a common way. > > Ok, but there's a more serious problem there. If you're moving the > package from core to extras or vice versa, start with the same spec file > and only change the parts you actually have to. > > If our naming policy for extras says we have to use one particular > capitalization for a "release" field, then we should fix it. That's > just a rule for the sake of having more rules. It doesn't buy us > anything. > > -- > Peter > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > well actually while i am also a fan of practicable solutions... either there are packaging guidelines... or there arent... if only half of fedora packages are done according to the guidelines i ask myself why the other half is forced wasting time with doing it. I see only one particular solution there... either drop the rules in general... or have the rules apply everywhere. regards, Rudolf Kastl -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
