On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 11:54 -0500, Chuck R. Anderson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 10:46:23AM -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
Fedora Extras: openafs-module unionfs-module
I don't like this. How are we supposed to refer to these packages in the yum configuration for installonly? *-module might collide with other packages that aren't kernel modules (apache module? perl module?). I like kernel-module-unionfs because it is clear that it is a kernel module, and we can use the kernel-module-* glob in yum configuration.
This seems reasonable. Is anyone opposed to:
kernel-module-GFS kernel-module-openafs kernel-module-unionfs kernel-module-ati kernel-module-nvidia
Could we also evolve to a lowercase standard for package names ? This example shows a clear example of why uppercase or mixed case could be confusing or problematic.
Other distributions already moved (or are evolving) to lower case as the default. (Even though perl is a good exception where uppercase and strict names are important)
I once wrote a few documents explaining the package namespace and ideas about that, including the kernel-module namespace.
http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/branches/docs/dag/old/naming-convention.txt http://svn.rpmforge.net/svn/branches/docs/dag/old/renamed-packages.txt
Both have pointers to other projects guidelines regarding naming and namespace.
The lib%{name} stuff was very controversial back then, even as a proposal. Whatever policy is chosen, I'm sure that the pragmatic way of enforcing it would be to start off (or limit it) to new packages only.
The add-on packages is something that is also not yet endorsed by everyone. The basic idea is to have an add-on package start with the name it adds something to. Like a python module starts off with python-%{name} and an xmms plugin starts with xmms-%{name}. Even when it is a sub-package of %{name} or the original name is slightly different (does/does not include a prefix or is named the other way around).
I think the biggest difficulty with coming up with a proper naming scheme is that people want to put that next to the current packages and suddenly see a lot of things not complying and then object to the proposed standard. We may have to first acknowledge that the current namespace is the result of not having a naming convention and acknowledge the fact that we don't necessarily need to fix everything that already exists to adopt a naming scheme for new packages.
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]