On 11/01/2013 05:33 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 11:34:58AM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
On 31/10/13 17:22, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 08:47:48AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
A prefix is necessary to make the scl packages unique from non-scl packages.
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?
To not have two same names for collection should be solved by Change
proposal approved probably by FESCo.
python2.6 -- mainstream compat package
python2.6-requests -- requests module built for the mainstream compat package
python2.6 -- python2.6 SCL metapackage name that you seem to be
proposing. Naming conflict is obvious here.
scl-python2.6 -- python2.6 SCL metapackage with no naming conflict.
scl-python2.6-python-requests -- The horrible name that I believe you are
refering to. This is controlled by the following portion of the
proposed Guideline:
Name must be modified like this:
-Name: foo
+Name: %{?scl_prefix}foo
python2.6-python-requests -- The almost as horrible name that I believe you
wish to use instead. This is the result of removing the prefix denoting
that this is not a mainstream package from %scl_prefix. Note that with
the current macros in place this would still leave the metapackage name
conflicting. To rectify that I'm guessing that you want to change the
definition of %scl_prefix something like this:
-%global scl_name>------->-------%{scl}
+%global scl_name>------->-------%(echo %{scl}| sed s/^scl-//)
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
-Toshio
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
If I understand correctly you want to remove part of the name to make
the name shorter. I disagree. The prefix marks packages as beeing part
of a collection. Also what would happen if someone build it without
prefix? It would bring more confusion than good.
Marcela
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
