On 01/11/13 13:33, Matthew Miller wrote:
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
Why should user care about installation path?
2) it's going to need to be activated in a special way
Yes, but users has to know about the activation anyway.
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?
Sure, without rubygem-1.2.3 with scl ruby193-rubygem-1.2.3. User has to
know that he wants ruby193 collection anyway and he has to execute "scl
enable ruby193", so scl prefix won't give him the knowledge.
I leave space for ideas to other people now, I still see scl prefix as
ugly and uneccesary.
Marcela
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
