I don't think there is any dispute that magic will be needed to solve this problem.
The more I think about it, the more I am opposed to abusing the package %{NAME} to solve it.
Let's make the ground level assumption that packages containing kernel modules will be named %{NAME}-module, based on precedence in Fedora Core.
So we'll have this:
Fedora Core: GFS-module
Fedora Extras: openafs-module unionfs-module
Livna:
ati-module nvidia-module
From there, we work uphill.
~spot --- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!
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.
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
?
~spot --- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!
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)
-- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 18:05 +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
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.
I think we should defer to the name of the sourcecode we're packaging. If it is GFS and not gfs, then we should match the name appropriately.
Does the yum search deal with case-insensitivity? If not, then its more of an issue.
~spot --- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!
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]
On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 11:06 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 18:05 +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
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.
I think we should defer to the name of the sourcecode we're packaging. If it is GFS and not gfs, then we should match the name appropriately.
Does the yum search deal with case-insensitivity? If not, then its more of an issue.
yum list and yum search do case-insentive matching.
yum install/remove/update does not, for obvious reasons.
-sv
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Chuck Anderson -
Dag Wieers -
seth vidal -
Tom Callaway