On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
Working as fast as I can... here is the first draft of the Naming
Policy
for Fedora Extras. Its not 100% complete yet, there are at least two
sections missing, but it covers the bases for most new packagers.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines
Feedback is welcome, and encouraged.
Looks good, I would propose a standard SPEC file (in the SRPM) formatted
as:
%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-%{repotag}.spec
If your working on a SPEC file and install several other versions, this
would prevent SPEC files replacing others. And the origin is clear too.
It's something the buildsystem could do before creating the SRPM (in that
respect it may not be that important for FE).
For the package release, it may be useful to use < 1 release numbers to
indicate a work in progress. (0.1, 0.2) We're doing the same in case we
consider something a beta or rc product. (Especially if you're posting
incremental test releases for other people to try). The version is always
numeric, the release is also always numeric (in case of alpha/beta/rc < 1
and followed by the non numeric portion of the version) postfixed with the
disttag and repotag.
PS I like the gnome-applet-%{name} convention, I have too many applets now
using the upstream name, which is not very clear whether it is a gnome
applet or not.
-- dag wieers, dag(a)wieers.com,
http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]