On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 21:35 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le mardi 03 juillet 2007 à 14:24 -0400, Jesse Keating a écrit : > > On Tuesday 03 July 2007 14:16:43 Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > ''' > > > For many reasons, it is sometimes advantageous to keep multiple versions > > > of a package in Fedora to be installed simultaneously. When doing so, > > > the package name should reflect this fact. One package should use the > > > base name with no versions and all other addons should note their > > > version in the name. > > > ''' > > > > > > This gives the maintainer the leeway to choose whether the package is > > > best served by having the latest version carry the unadorned name > > > forward or the previous version. > > > > +1 > > -1 > > The compat convention is awkward precisely to incite people to converge > on a common version. Making multi-versioning easy is a win short term > and a heavy loss long-term, because everyone just hardcodes a particular > version hoping for "someone else" to clean up the mess. > Possibly. Note that the current text of the guideline isn't any better. There is no current guideline to tell when to use (compat-libfoo1 && libfoo) vs (libfoo1 && libfoo). This change just opens up the possibility of libfoo (1.x) and libfoo2 (2.x) being legal. -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
