Paul Howarth wrote:It's not the naming scheme that needs improvement hare, it's the package management software (up2date, yum etc.). The smart package manager (and maybe others too?) as plugged here recently by Dag (RPMs at http://dag.wieers.com/packages/smart/) can be configured not to allow a repository to overwrite another repo's (or a core) package quite easily. The discrimination occurs at the repository level, not using package naming.
I don't agree.
All packages should be made to use the same dependencies by the package creators. If they have different dependencies than the original package they are supposed to be replacing, then they should be labeled differently so they don't try to replace the "correct" package.
In Dag's case, when he built the original package there *was* no "original" package.
Many projects can be built with different options, e.g. for use with different back-end databases. Packages of these projects will, of necessity, have different dependencies.
Package management is supposed to make our lives easier, not harder. Why should I have to spend two days to clean my computer to install one application that I need to test for work as.
Maybe a centralized index of build requirements is a better idea so all parties can build against the same specs.
This is fine if all repos are working together, e.g. the RPMforge sites, but not all repos, for whatever reasons, work together in this way.
Paul.
