On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 10:11:57AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:44:26 -1000, Chris Stark wrote: > > probably the appropraite thing to do). But undermining other repos by > > using conflicting naming systems IS "Microsoft-ish" (and thus utterly > > reprehensible) and they should be ashamed of themselves. > > Where is this conflicting naming scheme? Fedora.us' package naming > guidelines are documented for a very long time, unchanged. They are > the result of long mailing-list dicussions. What about the 3rd party > repositories? You yourself wrote a mail only a few weeks before, where you even layed out the timescale of the conflicting naming scheme. Michael's anmesia http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2004-November/msg00814.html (One of) Axel's pleas for interrepo versioning scheme http://www.fedora.us/pipermail/fedora-devel/2003-February/000216.html | IMHO one should very carefully reconsider naming | conventions. Instead of trying to overcome version/release ordering | scheme problems by obfuscating them, one should try to specify a | versioning scheme, that will allow interoperation of repositories. One of the rejections: http://www.fedora.us/pipermail/fedora-devel/2003-March/000516.html | > A repository identification string in the middle of a release tag | > makes it also very hard to have repository coordination (no ... not | > that sword again ... ;) | | I am still against repository coordination because that implies more | delay in repository building. I sincerely believe that after we | have our specifications done, several packagers can quickly convert | all repositories into Fedora and that would be the end of it. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpnGNLOyr5vE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
