On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:56:04 -0500, Charles R. Anderson wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 12:47:32AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > That won't work. To add independent tags/fields to an RPM package file
> > name, you must modify every available RPM filename parser so they
> > recognize this new scheme.
>
> Programs shouldn't be parsing filenames. They should be using rpmlib
> or rpm -q to extract the tags they need from the package.
That's why I say that without using a specific field in the RPM
header (package information), you won't come far with a vendor/repo
tag in the file name.
> > Available RPM tools would parse %vendor in
> > your filename as belonging to %release. And "rpm -qp --qf
> > %{vendor}\\n package.rpm" would return the internal value set in the
> > "Vendor:" tag, not your vendor from the file name.
>
> They would be the same in this case. The build system would set
> Vendor: fe for Fedora Extras, for example, and the resulting build
> would have .fe.i386.rpm at the end of the filename.
And we're back at the problem of vendor/repo tags influencing RPM
version comparison and being ambiguous, because they can be used by
everybody.
filesystem-2.2.1-3.rh.i386.rpm > filesystem-2.2.1-3.fc.i386.rpm
Okay, the FC1 package was 2.2.1-5, not 2.2.1-3, but you get the
picture. A release bump just to make the .fc package be newer than
the .rh package.
It's so much nice to see "Distribution: Fedora Core 3" and
"Distribution: Fedora Extras for FC3" or fields like that.