* Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> [2008-03-25 21:10]: > On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 23:03 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > I don't see what changed since the discussion on JPackageNaming. The > > original arguments still stand, and no further element occurred to my > > knowledge to justify changing the compromise that was painfully > > achieved. > > These reasons need to be actually enumerated somewhere, so that they can > be re-examined with today's tools, and if today's tools aren't up to the > task we can have a target to shoot for with tomorrow's tools. Thus far > I have only seen hand wavy reasons as to why it's "needed" and no clear > statements as to what problems are being solved with their existence. > An important reason we need the jpp in there currently is to maintain compatibility with JPackage. With the way the naming is right now, users can enable a JPackage repository beside a Fedora repo, and are guaranteed to get the latest either from Fedora or JPackage, whichever is newer. Without the jpp in the release tag, this compatibility is broken. And it goes beyond the packages themselves -- it also affects dependent packages, e.g package foo is currently at 1.0-1jpp in jpackage and 1.0-1jpp.1 in Fedora. If package bar depends on foo, and needs a fix to go into foo (1.0-2jpp), it can require foo >= 1.0-2 ... if fedora removed the "1jpp" from it's release tag, the next release of package foo in Fedora may satisfy bar's requirement, but won't work. Fedora's Java package set is nowhere close to as big as JPackage's, and we should not break compatibility between Fedora and JPackage just for the sake of a clean looking release tag. Deepak -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
