On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Dag Wieers wrote: > On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > > On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 11:54 -0500, Chuck R. Anderson wrote: > > >On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:46:23AM -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > >> Fedora Extras: > > >> openafs-module > > >> unionfs-module > > > > > >I don't like this. How are we supposed to refer to these packages in > > >the yum configuration for installonly? *-module might collide with > > >other packages that aren't kernel modules (apache module? perl > > >module?). I like kernel-module-unionfs because it is clear that it is > > >a kernel module, and we can use the kernel-module-* glob in yum > > >configuration. > > > > This seems reasonable. Is anyone opposed to: > > > > kernel-module-GFS > > kernel-module-openafs > > kernel-module-unionfs > > kernel-module-ati > > kernel-module-nvidia > > Could we also evolve to a lowercase standard for package names ? This > example shows a clear example of why uppercase or mixed case could be > confusing or problematic. > > Other distributions already moved (or are evolving) to lower case as the > default. (Even though perl is a good exception where uppercase and strict > names are important) I once wrote a few documents explaining the package namespace and ideas about that, including the kernel-module namespace. http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/branches/docs/dag/old/naming-convention.txt http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/branches/docs/dag/old/renamed-packages.txt Both have pointers to other projects guidelines regarding naming and namespace. The lib%{name} stuff was very controversial back then, even as a proposal. Whatever policy is chosen, I'm sure that the pragmatic way of enforcing it would be to start off (or limit it) to new packages only. The add-on packages is something that is also not yet endorsed by everyone. The basic idea is to have an add-on package start with the name it adds something to. Like a python module starts off with python-%{name} and an xmms plugin starts with xmms-%{name}. Even when it is a sub-package of %{name} or the original name is slightly different (does/does not include a prefix or is named the other way around). I think the biggest difficulty with coming up with a proper naming scheme is that people want to put that next to the current packages and suddenly see a lot of things not complying and then object to the proposed standard. We may have to first acknowledge that the current namespace is the result of not having a naming convention and acknowledge the fact that we don't necessarily need to fix everything that already exists to adopt a naming scheme for new packages. Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
