On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 01:51:42PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 03. 03. 21 13:47, Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 1:33 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com
><mailto:mhroncok@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> On 03. 03. 21 12:49, Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
> > Compat package prepared.
> >
> > Package autoconf269-2.69-1 provides:
> >
> > /usr/bin/autoconf269
> > /usr/bin/autoheader269
> > /usr/bin/autom4te269
> > /usr/bin/autoreconf269
> > /usr/bin/autoscan269
> > /usr/bin/autoupdate269
> > /usr/bin/ifnames269
> > ...
> >
> > Parallel installation successful.
> >
> > Any suggestions/concerns are welcome.
>
> My concerns are:
>
> 1) Why 269 and not 2.69?
>
>Just a naming convention, if needed can be easily changed
There is no need to complicate stuff by removing the dot. The naming
convention for compat packages is to include the version:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#multiple
Agreed, but we do already have precedent in this case with autoconf213
and autoconf268.
I would prefer the installed executable(s) carry a -2.69 suffix. For
the package name I would say follow the convention we already have for
older autoconf packages.
Thanks,
--
David Cantrell <dcantrell(a)redhat.com>
Red Hat, Inc. | Boston, MA | EST5EDT