On 7/14/06, Enrico Scholz <enrico.scholz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
toshio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Toshio Kuratomi) writes: > http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/JavaPackageNaming > > Feel free to review it and see if I've missed anything, misstated the > effects of naming according to a certain proposal, etc. | 1. Allow for upgrading between the Fedora and JPackage repositories so | that upgrade paths similar to the following works: This will be needed for the first installation of a Java package from FE only. Then, I see the following two situations: 1. user enabled on FE repository --> jpackage versioning is uninteresting 2. user enabled both FE and JPackage repositories --> When FE packager is a little bit behind, jpackage packages will override FE packags again. This would render JPackages in FE useless. General versioniong rules for mixing repositories are impossible so I suggest to ignore the jpackage Release: resp. just make sure that first FE package wins against the original JPackage package. | 2. Allow packagers to tell what JPackage release the java package was | based against. I do not think that this must be expressed with Release:; you could document this somewhere else (%description) or write | Provides: jpackage(%name) = %jpackage_version-%jpackage_release
Would it be better to look at the java packages being a seperate repo with its own naming standards? Anaconda could aim at these packages in their own on disk repo and a fuller jpackage repo could be included on the download sites. -- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
