[Bug 2005318] Review Request: autoconf27 - updated autoconf package with suitable name for EPEL

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2005318



--- Comment #9 from mkulik@xxxxxxxxxx ---
Package functions correctly after the changes. I see no more issues here.

Package name 'autoconf27' makes sense to me if we want to keep 2.7.x version
tree. From guidelines:

> For many reasons, it is sometimes advantageous to keep multiple versions of a package in Fedora to be installed simultaneously.
> When doing so, the package name MUST reflect this fact. One package SHOULD use the base name (with no version information).
> All other packages derived from it MUST include the base name suffixed by either

The package meets these requirements.

> The python-sqlalchemy package occasionally has multiple versions in Fedora for backwards compatibility. The most current version of python-sqlalchemy is named python-sqlalchemy and an older supported version is python-sqlalchemy0.5. No delimiter is used in this situation.

This is an example from guidelines, when the suffix '0.5' is used.

Someone could say that '27' suffix might be misleading if it was a different
package because it could mean that the package provides version 27.x.
Ofc we probably won't see so high version here but still. Author might decide
to bump version to 27 for some reason and we have a small problem with
confusion.
We have a bigger one when someone try to provide version 27.x to the same
repository as a forward compatibility.

I would say this is not a strict requirement and it's fine for me but in
another example:

> The most current version of the v8 package is named v8. In order to package version "3.13", the package MUST be named v8_3.13

I can find packages that does not follow that rule. Addition to this in
guidelines should be made to make it more clear.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2005318
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux