[repo-coord] Versioning schemes/disttags and Mandrake style shared libs packaging (was: YANST)

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 10:26:38AM +0200, Bent Terp wrote:
> (Apologies for Yet Another Naming Scheme Thread, but I'm trying to
> navigate this minefield without stepping on anything....)

Sorry, but there is no space on the minefield, e.g. it's like
minesweeper w/o any clean fields underneath ;)

> 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.

But in the wrong order.

Check the archives of this list, especially

http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/repo-coord/2004-March/000203.html
http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/repo-coord/2004-May/000313.html

> 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.

No, the document is for one repo only. There is no spirit of having
other repos around.

> Now, you will NEVER hear me saying that you or anybody else should be
> "encouraged" to changing your ways of doing things.

Personally I would strongly recommend not using this scheme. Use the
scheme in the above links. Personally I believe the most effective
schemes are

a) rh7.3 < rh8.0 < rh9 < rhfc1 < rhfc2 < rhfc2.90
b) fc0.7.3 < ... < fc0.9 < fc1 < ... < fc2.90
c) RHL7.3 < ... < RHL9 < fc1 < ... < fc2.90

a) is in use by several repos today. b) and c) have the nice thing
that they reflect current distros better ("fc1", "fc2") at the price
of obfuscating the old ones.

Perhaps the shouting RHL is a way to go: Capital letters remind of
FORTRAN. A language believed to be dead like Latin/Ancient Greek, but
still in wide use ;)

There are also other suggested schemes introducing distepochs which
make the disttag start with a number and are therefore
dangerous. Check the repo-coord archives in the last three months to
see the discussion (redoing it w/o something new will only fatigue
people on the list more than they are).

> My change came largely as a result of the merger of Rudi's repo with
> mine - BTW, big thanks for introducing us!

Hey, that's great, nice to see such a synergy effect! Looking forward
to a common scirpm repo :)

> > 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" ;-)

What wrong with simply prepending "0_" to the release tag? That's what
ATrpms does and other repos do similar with "0.".

> > 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....

Here is a link to Mandrake's policy:

http://qa.mandrakesoft.com/twiki/bin/view/Main/RpmHowToAdvanced#Library_policy

I had seen a much detailed web site in their wiki, but the wiki got
reorganized. Anyway the examples show what the issues are, you need
forward/backward compatibility packages right at the first creation of
the package (so you don't have to go back rebuilding naxt time) and 
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/repo-coord/attachments/20040723/d2c77618/attachment.bin