On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 11:34:58AM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> >As a sysadmin, this seems obvious to me. Marcela, can you explain the
> >reasoning in _not_ doing it?
> Packages are already unique. They have prefix e.g. ruby193. If we
> force packagers add scl-ruby193 prefix, would it be more unique?
Not just unique in the name-collision aspect, but unique in that:
1) it's going to be putting files in a different place than a normal rpm
2) it's going to need to be activated in a special way
3) it avoids conflict with possible versioned RPMs packaged in the
traditional way
4) it was my understanding that SCL spec files could be built as either
scls or regular packages. Without the special name, how will one
easily tell which it is?
--
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
