On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 13:56 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 7/3/07, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > We didn't have quorum in the Fedora Packaging Meeting but we did discuss > > the proposal[1]_ to relax the guidelines for packages with multiple > > versions. After some discussion it was decided that restricting the > > maintainer too much is not desirable. Some points: > > > > * Guideline was written in the present manner to avoid confusion > > * Using compat-* as a namespace for all less than current libraries has > > the following disadvantages over [name][version]: > > * cvs history won't follow the compat-* even though it is arguably > > closer to the original package than the upgraded one. > > * BuildRequires would have to be changed between branches to > > accommodate the compat-* on the newer branch. > > > > I'd like to have votes on relaxing the guidelines as follows: > > > > ''' > > 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. > > So I can see this in my head... this would be like > > python15 > python20 > python22 > python23 > python24 > python > > for something like say EPEL where you might need to have > python23/24/30 installed on a system for an app to work since the > shipped version is 22. I would say that there would need to be a > standardization of how these older items should/would be packaged up > so that people do not accidently run one when the other was wanted. > > Or is this meaning something else? > This change only addresses the naming of such a package, not the contents. Your EPEL example is a bit problematic under the old guidelines because, following the letter of the guideline, [basename][version] that is newer than [basename] would not be allowed. So with python-2.3 in RHEL4 a python15 package would be named appropriately. python24 would not. With the new proposal the name python24 would be 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
