RE: Vendor created RPM naming.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



If you felt like justifying your choices by following an actual published guideline, you could look here
(see in particular the 4th bullet which matches what you're already doing).
 
http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/pkgnameconv.html
 
 
 


From: rpm-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpm-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ace Nimrod
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:55 AM
To: rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Vendor created RPM naming.

We provide our product as a set of RPMs for RedHat 4/CentOS 4 (and soon 5) and we require some RPMs that are upgrades of the base RPMs.  To prevent conflicts we install all our packages in /opt/<vendorname> and prefix all RPM packages with <vendorname>.  This will prevent us from overwriting any other RPMs, as well as RPMs overwriting ours.

Is this sane?

So for example, we provide our own foobar package which is an upgrade to foobar in CentOS 4, we'd name it like..
  <myvendor>.foobar-1.2.3-1.el4

Is there a better approach to take with this?  So far it seems to work just fine.

Thanks.

_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list

[Index of Archives]     [RPM Ecosystem]     [Linux Kernel]     [Red Hat Install]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Watch]     [Red Hat Development]     [Red Hat]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [IETF Discussion]

  Powered by Linux