[repo-coord] YANST [was: Re: GD >= 2.0 for pre FC2 ?]

[Bent Terp]

(Apologies for Yet Another Naming Scheme Thread, but I'm trying to
navigate this minefield without stepping on anything....)


On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 09:28, Axel Thimm wrote:
> Well, the fedora.us release tags are multiple-repo unfriendly

I've chosen to read between the lines of the proposal, and thus my 2nd
attempt at version 0.14 of perl-File-Temp has
SRPM  perl-File-Temp-0.14-0.bio.2.src.rpm
FC2   perl-File-Temp-0.14-0.bio.2.2.noarch.rpm
FC1   perl-File-Temp-0.14-0.bio.2.1.noarch.rpm
RH9   perl-File-Temp-0.14-0.bio.2.rh90.noarch.rpm
RH80  perl-File-Temp-0.14-0.bio.2.rh80.noarch.rpm

> them anything to use a disttag-repotag approach as we suggested, it

So, I've got both a disttag and a repotag. And have managed to yield
before an official perl-File-Temp-0.14-1.* from redhat, and a
less-official perl-File-Temp-0.14-0.fdr.* from fedora.us. I believe this
conforms to the spirit behind, if not the letter of, the document.

Now, you will NEVER hear me saying that you or anybody else should be
"encouraged" to changing your ways of doing things. My change came
largely as a result of the merger of Rudi's repo with mine - BTW, big
thanks for introducing us!

But if you (that's plural "you", goes for anybody reading this...) can
see problems arising from the above which I haven't spotted, then PLEASE
speak up.

> And AFAIK for fedora.us to become a Fedora Extras repo the fdr-tagging
> will have to be dropped. Red Hat is apparently not willing to do
> tagging on offical packages.

Hmm, I thought that was the intention all along, that packages from
"Fedora Extras" aka fedora.us would use 0.fdr.X and packages from
"Fedora Project" aka fedora.redhat.com would use X, providing a way for
fedora.redhat.com to override fedora.us without starting a
releasetag-war. As often happens, I sit here wondering "I must have
missed something" ;-)

> That being said we need a backport/backwards-compatibility
> policy. ATrpms has taken over the Mandrake scheme (naming libs like
> libfoo<libmajor>). It has proven to do a very good job at Mandrake,
> and while other schemes could have been chosen, I'd suggest to use
> their scheme to start have more compatibility across distributions.

For the unenlightened (me, that is), how would this apply to i.e. the
EMBOSS packages? Currently, I've got the .so-stuff in EMBOSS-libs:
[bent at espresso biorpms]$ rpm -qlp EMBOSS-libs-2.9.0-5.rh80.bio.i686.rpm
/usr/lib/libajax.so.0
/usr/lib/libajax.so.0.1.0
/usr/lib/libajaxg.so.0
/usr/lib/libajaxg.so.0.1.0
/usr/lib/libnucleus.so.0
/usr/lib/libnucleus.so.0.1.0
/usr/lib/libplplot.so.5
/usr/lib/libplplot.so.5.0.0
(yes, this is a pre 0.bio. package)

How would these be named, using "the Mandrake scheme"? Not arguing
against anything, merely trying to understand....

-- 
MVH / With kind regards,
        Bent Terp <Bent.Terp at biosci.ki.se>
        System Administrator
        Bioinformatics and Expression Analysis Core Facility
        Karolinska Institute, Department of Biosciences
        Hälsovagen 7-9, 141 57 Huddinge, Sweden