[opensuse-factory] renaming of source packages proposal
Hallo. I saw many renames of packages in the last days. We follow shared library packaging conventions, but this policy says nothing about renaming of source package. I think, that it would be a good practice to use the same name for both devel and source package. It's more convenient and even simpler to do it in the spec. I propose to add following line to the Packaging/Shared Library Packaging Policy: "Source packages should in general omit $NUM as .src.rpm packages for different library versions and should follow -devel package naming." In practice it will bring more convenient .src.rpm naming and nicer spec files and less number of renames and drops in the repositories. Deprecated: Name: libfoo_1_2_3 Version: 1.2.3 %define orig_name libfoo Source: %{orig_name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 ... %files ... %files -n %{orig_name}-devel It produces: libfoo_1_2_3-1.2.3.i586.rpm libfoo-devel-1.2.3.i586.rpm libfoo_1_2_3-1.2.3.src.rpm Proposed: Name: libfoo Version: 1.2.3 Source: %{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 ... %files -n libfoo_1_2_3 ... %files devel It produces: libfoo-1_2_3-1.2.3.i586.rpm libfoo-devel-1.2.3.i586.rpm libfoo-1.2.3.src.rpm -- Best Regards / S pozdravem, Stanislav Brabec software developer --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX, s. r. o. e-mail: sbrabec@suse.cz Lihovarská 1060/12 tel: +420 284 028 966 190 00 Praha 9 fax: +420 284 028 951 Czech Republic http://www.suse.cz/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Am Montag 16 Juli 2007 schrieb Stanislav Brabec:
Hallo.
I saw many renames of packages in the last days. We follow shared library packaging conventions, but this policy says nothing about renaming of source package.
I think, that it would be a good practice to use the same name for both devel and source package. It's more convenient and even simpler to do it in the spec.
I propose to add following line to the Packaging/Shared Library Packaging Policy:
"Source packages should in general omit $NUM as .src.rpm packages for different library versions and should follow -devel package naming."
In practice it will bring more convenient .src.rpm naming and nicer spec files and less number of renames and drops in the repositories.
I don't see this followed in general. And just as we don't put "Don't shoot yourself in the foot" in our policies, I don't think we should put everything in there _not_ to do. Yeah, it opens some room for speculation and interpretation, but that is ok. We're working with engineers - mostly humans - not machines. Just my 2 cents. Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Stephan Kulow wrote:
Am Montag 16 Juli 2007 schrieb Stanislav Brabec:
Hallo.
I saw many renames of packages in the last days. We follow shared library packaging conventions, but this policy says nothing about renaming of source package.
I think, that it would be a good practice to use the same name for both devel and source package. It's more convenient and even simpler to do it in the spec.
I propose to add following line to the Packaging/Shared Library Packaging Policy:
"Source packages should in general omit $NUM as .src.rpm packages for different library versions and should follow -devel package naming."
In practice it will bring more convenient .src.rpm naming and nicer spec files and less number of renames and drops in the repositories.
I don't see this followed in general. And just as we don't put "Don't shoot yourself in the foot" in our policies, I don't think we should put everything in there _not_ to do. Yeah, it opens some room for speculation and interpretation, but that is ok. We're working with engineers - mostly humans - not machines.
Just my 2 cents.
We may add an example spec file how to do it. Some packagers might not be aware the fact, that they don't have to create libfoo RPM from package named libfoo, and they may create only libfoo_1_2_3 + libfoo-devel. Every such source rename breaks the Build Service builds on top of older products and requires to maintain raising "Prefer:" list in the build config. :-( -- Best Regards / S pozdravem, Stanislav Brabec software developer --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX, s. r. o. e-mail: sbrabec@suse.cz Lihovarská 1060/12 tel: +420 284 028 966 190 00 Praha 9 fax: +420 284 028 951 Czech Republic http://www.suse.cz/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Am Montag 16 Juli 2007 schrieb Stanislav Brabec:
We may add an example spec file how to do it. Some packagers might not be aware the fact, that they don't have to create libfoo RPM from package named libfoo, and they may create only libfoo_1_2_3 + libfoo-devel.
Yes, excellent idea. I think there is already one for hello world in the packager guidance material, but one for libhello would surely be good idea to have and can be linked from the naming policy. It shouldn't be part of the policy though. Will you please take care of this?
Every such source rename breaks the Build Service builds on top of older products and requires to maintain raising "Prefer:" list in the build config. :-(
I suggest you cleanup the misunderstandings. Greetings, Stephan -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, Stanislav Brabec wrote:
Hallo.
I saw many renames of packages in the last days. We follow shared library packaging conventions, but this policy says nothing about renaming of source package.
I think, that it would be a good practice to use the same name for both devel and source package. It's more convenient and even simpler to do it in the spec.
I propose to add following line to the Packaging/Shared Library Packaging Policy:
"Source packages should in general omit $NUM as .src.rpm packages for different library versions and should follow -devel package naming."
In practice it will bring more convenient .src.rpm naming and nicer spec files and less number of renames and drops in the repositories.
Deprecated:
Name: libfoo_1_2_3 Version: 1.2.3 %define orig_name libfoo Source: %{orig_name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 ... %files ... %files -n %{orig_name}-devel
It produces: libfoo_1_2_3-1.2.3.i586.rpm libfoo-devel-1.2.3.i586.rpm libfoo_1_2_3-1.2.3.src.rpm
Proposed:
Name: libfoo Version: 1.2.3 Source: %{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 ... %files -n libfoo_1_2_3 ... %files devel
It produces: libfoo-1_2_3-1.2.3.i586.rpm libfoo-devel-1.2.3.i586.rpm libfoo-1.2.3.src.rpm
Just to add my 2 cents - the proposed way is the way I suggested it
done. Even further I thought to avoid renaming the source rpm at all
(which would most of the time result in the above proposed scheme).
Richard.
--
Richard Guenther
participants (3)
-
Richard Guenther -
Stanislav Brabec -
Stephan Kulow