On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 12:06 +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
Great, thanks for the thoughtful example. I was talking about a
prefix from
the LANANA provider name registry,
http://lanana.org/lsbreg/providers/index.html, and I'm also aware that many
potential providers don't have an entry there, yet.
You're presuming that third party entities will follow the letter of
such a proposal, rather than attempting to cram garbage in (but stay in
the spirit of the proposal). ACPI and DMA prove that conclusively
incorrect.
Putting aside FUD for a second, where do you see problems querying
the rpm
database, or in Bugzilla?
What's the bugzilla entry? adaptec-aic7xxx-6.2.36?
adaptec-aic7xxx-6.2.37? adaptec-aic7xxx-6.2.38?
rpm -q adaptec-aic7xxx fails. Not only does the user need to know the
driver name, they also need to remember the vendor.
And why do you think the number of source rpms
would change at all?
Source rpms are generated from %{name}. By putting changing and unique
variables in %{name}, you generate a LOT of srpms.
> And we can certainly offer multiple packages.
>
> kernel-module-foo-1.2-1.2.6.13_93smp (driver version 1.2, build 1)
> kernel-module-foo-1.2-2.2.6.13_93smp (driver version 1.2, build 2)
> kernel-moudle-foo-1.3-1.2.6.13_93smp (driver version 1.3, build 1)
You can have multiple packets next to each other, but rpm --freshen (and other
tools using the same logic) won't work as expected anymore: you will always
end up with the most recent driver version. Sticking with the same driver
version by default will break.
We've fixed the tools (specifically yum) to handle this condition.
~spot
--
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader:
http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!