On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 11:17:32PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote: > 1) Version and release-tags: Package version should obviously follow > upstream version in normal, sane cases but especially things like 1.0- > pre1 need special rules to handle without epochs, those should be > covered in this doc. The old fedora.us packaging guidelines doc, section > C-3 (http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines) pretty much > covers these cases if you drop the 0.fdr tags from the rules. +1. This will help avoid unnecessary epoch inflation. For even more giggles, see development: rpm -qp --qf='%{epoch}\n' *.rpm | sort | uniq -c | sort -n > 2) While at versions and releases: can we *please* have a standard on > release-tags. Current FC trees have a wild variety of things in there > like "3jpp_2fc", in general a truly random FC3 vs fc2 dist-tags for some > packages (disttags are just fine when needed but can we standardize on > lowercase like with package names, please :) .. and so on. Just do > 'rpm -qp --qf "%{release}\n" *|sort -u' on current FC-devel RPMS > directory for giggles. Please let's have a standard of allowed > characters in release and version tags as well since we're having one > for names? +1 > 3) Addon packages: when a package is renamed, eg 'adodb' -> 'php-adodb' > it *might* be a good idea to add the original name as a "Provides: > adodb" so people looking for upstream naming can find it more easily. Already covered in section 1.7 "Renaming a package". You need the Obsoletes: too.
