On 2004-12-17 (Friday) 20:18, seth vidal wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-12-17 at 11:40 -0600, Satish Balay wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, seth vidal wrote:
> >
> > > nope. Just means a user thinks something is from somewhere by
> > > looking at the filename, not looking at the content or the
> > > signature.
> >
> > You could take this argument to the extreme - and remove the
> > 'version-release-arch' from the filename - and just provide 'yum.rpm'
> >
> > Oh wait - they moved away from that practice since SuSE-8.0?
> >
>
> I don't want to take things to the extreme.
>
> I'm not asking for things to be removed from the standard rpm filename.
>
> I'm just asking that the release field not be used for branding.
>
> if you want to brand your package use vendor or packager.
>
Having the repo in the name makes package observation quite easier.
All fedora packages don't have this tag or have FC3 (latest updates).
All extras I've used till now have something different (.dag, .lvn,
.fr...). Imagine I've downloaded all packages I need to use mplayer.
This makes more than 10. I can not download packages from different
repos (in the same dir) if their versions match in this case and if
I want to see which package comes from where I have to 'for i in *.rpm;
do rpm -qi package; done' or use query-format. I CAN do this, but it
is slow and tell me how do I explain the situation to a newbie? About
security - rpm can be changed to verify the repo (gpg) for example.
I think that's all that can be done without touching rpm and that's
why I like it. If rpm is to be modified it's another story... so much
ideas fly around that I wonder will I recognize it afterwards. If the
frontends (like yum) are to be changed - FC2's yum is not compatible
with FC3's yum, but no one cares and it works much better.
--
Regards,
Doncho N. Gunchev Registered Linux User #291323 at counter.li.org
GPG-Key-ID: 1024D/DA454F79 http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 684F 688B C508 C609 0371 5E0F A089 CB15 DA45 4F79