[repo-coord] Re: PyVault Nomenclature

[Axel Thimm]

Hi Jeff,

just a general question, do you want to extend to non-Red Hat
distributions (in the future) or will you only consider Red
Hat/Fedora?

Even if today you would not really consider other distros, I'd
recommend to at least design the naming/versioning spec in such a way
as to not block this path.

On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 12:20:02AM +0800, Jeff Pitman wrote:
> For versioning, I'll try to stick with what's 
> mainstream (ie, python2.3-2.3.3-3.pyv.0.rh90).

I'd suggest to move the repotag (pyv) to the end of the comparison
string, e.g. python2.3-2.3.3-3.rh9.pyv (to make the repotag less
important than the disttag from an rpm upgrading POV)

>   ATrpms uses a more Redhat-esque approach by naming every package,
>   regardless of its role, closer to the original package name as
>   distributed by the original Python package.

That's a general stance, not only for python. I try hard to respect
the authors and communities in their choice for a name and also not
create additional external (aka deduced from a packager) confusion.

It also can become a problem if a packager invents a canonical name
and suddenly a software project emerges which carries that name.

Python packaging is often compared to perl, but there are significant
differences, perl has a rather standardized categorization of its
modules making a canonical approach easier. Furthermore the perl
modules don't have any indication of its own that they are such and
could often clash with non-perl packages, which neccessiated the
"perl-" prefix (e.g. perl-Tk, perl-GD etc. would fall into the same
namespace with the non-perl packages w/o a prefix).

The situation with python is different as almost all python
module/library-like projects have python appreviated in their project
name, or are rather prominent w/o a chance of a clash (like yum or
rhlp).

>   Typical configuration (XXX - sorry for the LyX/linuxdoc bug and I
>   can't get sgml/docbook from atrpms working):

Please more details on that (in separate post and not to repo-coord ;)
-- 
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/20040509/b240883f/attachment.bin