On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 20:21 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le vendredi 14 juillet 2006 à 12:55 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III a > écrit : > > >>>>> "NM" == Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > NM> What's different is the package inter-dependencies. > > > > So they get to violate our in-place packaging and naming conventions? > > Just because they have lots of dependencies? > > Our naming conventions are not tables of law, they were written to solve > specific problems and the people who wrote them didn't think about this > particular case, so now they'll have to think about it, come with a > solution, put it in the guidelines and everyone will be happy. > > Instead of screaming "they're not following the holy guidelines" please > spent 5s thinking about what the guidelines are about (solve technical > problems). > I agree. I'm not yet convinced that _they're_ solving a problem, though. There are definite drawbacks to interleaving packages with the jpackage repositories. On -maintainers I pointed to some @rh packagers who aren't onboard with the interleaved strategy and I think lutter is dropping a line onto the internal rh list to get feedback from them and the other rh-java packagers as to whether interleaving is a goal or not. > I'd have thought the somewhat irritated intervention of Paul Nasrat Err Paul Nasrat? Which post, which list? (If you meant fnasser, then I know what you're talking about.) > and > all the posts about technicalities vs æsthetics would have make all this > clean. > If interleaving is not a goal, then I don't see a reason to change the guidelines. Consistency is a technical goal; not an aesthetic one. In the absence of a conflicting technical goal this is what we should go with. > (and BTW these people don't _need_ the guidelines, they were doing > inter-repo multi-package-updater updates when Fedora Core was still > thinking "the next anaconda run will clean it all") _We_ need the guidelines. Look at the proliferation of ways that snapshot dates are added to the release field in jpackage. Now imagine how many new packagers and package reviewers are going to build packages that break the upgrade path if we allow all of that into naming. It's also bad for a reviewer when we have two different sets of guidelines for naming. If this is a JPackage derived package, you have to check that NEVR fits into the JPackage rules for naming followed by a proper Fedora Named tag. Otherwise use the Fedora Naming Guidelines to decide if NEVR is correct. Or do we just assume that jpackage has always caught bad naming? So we're left holding the bag when something goes wrong? (cryptix-asn1-20011119) -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
