Re: Explicit versioning of library names [was Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit]

On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 08:07:24AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Sorry, I forgot to reply to this. This was discussed on the thread > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-February/179185.html > a while ago. The general sense was that we would function as above. I > then promptly forgot that the package review hadn't yet been finished > for python-django14. > > I'm about to approve that review, unless this is being deemed > unacceptable by FPC (though it's not really in the guidelines). > Sorry I didn't catch the details of that when it was originally proposed. There's currently guidelines that would prevent that: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packag... "[..]One package should use the base name with no versions and all other addons should note their version in the name." After sending this I saw mrunge's announcement of updating the