On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 08:45 +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: > On 07/11/13 19:39, James Antill wrote: > > * dots in version portion (abadger1999, 16:52:28) > > * Agreed that the version portion of scl names must include dots. > > (+1:5, 0:1, -1:0) (abadger1999, 17:00:35) > I'm sure I mentioned dots will surely will be a problem for rpm, yum, > dnf, createrepo or something else in this area. AFAIK none of our tools have problems with '.' in any part of NVRA, and hopefully I'd know ;). If you know of someone I should ping, or something I should check though ... feel free to let me know, or reply. > That's probably the reason for guidelines about Compat packages: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name That says "optionally", and I'm not sure of the history behind seemingly encouraging openssl096b over openssl0.9.6b. Any older FPC members know? Maybe it was the assumption that there would be _very few_ compat. packages like this, and users wouldn't look at them directly anyway, so having something without dots in it is somehow a win. However there are also a lot of packages with them: % repoquery -C --qf '%{name}' -a | fgrep . | wc -l 528 ...and the above openssl packages was exactly the kind of case we wanted dots to be used for with SCLs, because assuming a significant number of SCLs are going to be produced nobody wants users to have to guess what foo19512 vs foo19611 means. -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
