On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 07:57:46PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 12:06:39PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 17:51 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >
> > > BTW, when we initially discussed the kmod standard there was also (IIRC)
> > > a strong resistance from multiple important and well known people at
> > > redhat against overloading %{NAME} with the output of "uname -r". I
> > > doubt that option changed. Spot? Jeremy? f13?
> >
> > Yep. I'm still very strongly against overloading %{NAME}. We don't
> > permit any other package to do this for any reason, and I don't want to
> > start now. Name is not for versioning.
>
> Well, it's good to know as that kills any review attempt of the
> current scheme.
Does it make sense to gather all people against a uname -r in name
scheme to try to persuade otherwise? Either in the regular
#fedora-packaging meetings or on a special meeting?
I really thing there is a flaw and the uname-r-in-name is the only way
out, and I'd try to persuade people about that. Maybe they could be
poited to this mail thread as well, as everything is in principle layed
out here.
Or, if you know it's a lost cause, let's silence this topic, which
would be a rather sad outcome.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpYiSLQFpDRR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
