On Thursday 18 August 2005 21:27, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 19:56 +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > We thought it useful to include a unique provider prefix in the package > > name though, so that different vendors won't produce name clashes. Our > > plan was to use the LANANA provider names registry > > (http://www.lanana.org/) for that. > > Ugh. I really don't want to cram everything and the kitchen sink into > the package name. I'd rather see the package check for a > SuSE/Fedora/Whatever only file on the system and use that to determine > if its in the right place or not. We also have dist tags for that > purpose in Fedora Extras. My example was not perfectly well chosen. The idea was to have provider prefixes like adaptec, nvidia, ati and similar, so an example out-of-line aic7xxx upgrade would be adaptec-aic7xxx-8.9.10-2.6.13_99_smp-3, etc. > > The driver name, driver version, and kernel release ($KERNELRELEASE) are > > also stored differently in rpm tags: our build system likes to be able to > > freely assign the package release number, so we don't store extra > > information there. Rather, we put the driver version in the Name, and the > > kernel release in the Version: > > Hmm. Again, I don't want to overload %{name}. That's not what its there > for, imho. What makes %version or %release more appropriate for overloading? With the driver version as part of %version or %release, you can't easily offer packages for more than one version of a driver for the same kernel, and yet have working updates. I would be surprised if you didn't ever have this situation with RHEL. -- Andreas. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
