On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 12:06 +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > Great, thanks for the thoughtful example. I was talking about a prefix from > the LANANA provider name registry, > http://lanana.org/lsbreg/providers/index.html, and I'm also aware that many > potential providers don't have an entry there, yet. You're presuming that third party entities will follow the letter of such a proposal, rather than attempting to cram garbage in (but stay in the spirit of the proposal). ACPI and DMA prove that conclusively incorrect. > Putting aside FUD for a second, where do you see problems querying the rpm > database, or in Bugzilla? What's the bugzilla entry? adaptec-aic7xxx-6.2.36? adaptec-aic7xxx-6.2.37? adaptec-aic7xxx-6.2.38? rpm -q adaptec-aic7xxx fails. Not only does the user need to know the driver name, they also need to remember the vendor. > And why do you think the number of source rpms > would change at all? Source rpms are generated from %{name}. By putting changing and unique variables in %{name}, you generate a LOT of srpms. > > And we can certainly offer multiple packages. > > > > kernel-module-foo-1.2-1.2.6.13_93smp (driver version 1.2, build 1) > > kernel-module-foo-1.2-2.2.6.13_93smp (driver version 1.2, build 2) > > kernel-moudle-foo-1.3-1.2.6.13_93smp (driver version 1.3, build 1) > > You can have multiple packets next to each other, but rpm --freshen (and other > tools using the same logic) won't work as expected anymore: you will always > end up with the most recent driver version. Sticking with the same driver > version by default will break. We've fixed the tools (specifically yum) to handle this condition. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
