Quoting Toshio Kuratomi (2013-11-01 17:33:56)
> scl-python2.6-requests -- My preferred name for the scl packaged requests
> module as it actually removes the redundant information (we already know
> this is a python module) instead of the helpful information (now we know
> that this is a package that is part of an scl). This is can be
> expressed via a change to the proposed Guidelines. Instead of
> specifying that general scl package names must be
> %{scl_prefix}python-foo we can specify that scl package names can be
> %{scl_prefix}foo. I think we'll need to reference the addon package
> naming guidelines to explain how people should do this.
>
> Something like: In general, Name is constructed by prepending scl_prefix
> to the existing package name like this [example]. However, to avoid
> redundancy, addon packages should remove the information that is
> already present in the scl_prefix like this:
> # If scl_prefix is scl-python2.6 then
> %if %{scl_prefix}
> Name: %{scl_prefix}foo
> %else
> Name: python-foo
> %endif
That is exactly why I think removing prefix is a bad idea. It complicates
already complex spec files even further for not good reason except aesthetics.
Not to mention complicating guidelines. We *know* people have a hard time
following current guidelines. Do you honestly believe they will be able to
follow something like "Do X unless Y is set, but if Z is set together with Y do
Q"? We should try hard to keep guidelines simple to the core. Best practices are
one thing, guidelines are something else.
Also newsflash: most users don't care how the RPMs are named. They care if the RPMs
fulfill their needs.
--
Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotnicky@xxxxxxxxxx>
Software Engineer - Developer Experience
PGP: 7B087241
Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
