On Thursday 18 August 2005 21:27, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-18 at 19:56 +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> We thought it useful to include a unique provider prefix in the package
> name though, so that different vendors won't produce name clashes. Our
> plan was to use the LANANA provider names registry
> (
http://www.lanana.org/) for that.
Ugh. I really don't want to cram everything and the kitchen sink into
the package name. I'd rather see the package check for a
SuSE/Fedora/Whatever only file on the system and use that to determine
if its in the right place or not. We also have dist tags for that
purpose in Fedora Extras.
My example was not perfectly well chosen. The idea was to have provider
prefixes like adaptec, nvidia, ati and similar, so an example out-of-line
aic7xxx upgrade would be adaptec-aic7xxx-8.9.10-2.6.13_99_smp-3, etc.
> The driver name, driver version, and kernel release
($KERNELRELEASE) are
> also stored differently in rpm tags: our build system likes to be able to
> freely assign the package release number, so we don't store extra
> information there. Rather, we put the driver version in the Name, and the
> kernel release in the Version:
Hmm. Again, I don't want to overload %{name}. That's not what its there
for, imho.
What makes %version or %release more appropriate for overloading? With the
driver version as part of %version or %release, you can't easily offer
packages for more than one version of a driver for the same kernel, and yet
have working updates. I would be surprised if you didn't ever have this
situation with RHEL.
-- Andreas.