On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 10:11:28PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:52:55 +0200 > Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > What do you think about that idea? > > My immediate reaction is that it adds more and more Provides that tools > have to process, making things slower and slower. It also gets us into > the game of "shortest name wins" once more with these things, but maybe > that's not a problem per se. The aim is not to add more virtual provides, but have a consistent naming for the proivdes such that there is a rule to find out the virtual provide name. My proposal is therefore like: When a program provides a server listening on a given port, and a virtual provide for that functionality is neeeded, the corresponding provide should named server(port_name), port_name being the official name of the port, as in /etc/services. > Why don't you work up a proposal on the wiki to consolidate all these > things like 'web-server' that you want to change to a more commonly As there is no common naming scheme I can't say what other virtual provides exist beside smtpdaemon and webserver. > used server(web), generate a list of all the packages that would have > to be changed both for provides and for Requires, propose a time for > the work to be done, etc.. Treat it almost like a Feature page. I was gathering opinions before doing that. -- Pat -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
