Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (115 mails)

[R Hannes Beinert <argovela@xxxxxxxxx>]

[Apologies for my previous truncated email :-]

Hello!

I was curious if there is any standard (ad hoc, or otherwise) for
package naming, and the spec file version/release information
which includes provisions for (1) tagging the provenance of an
rpm to a particular packager/repo, and (2) still allows for
rpm-based installers to understand the proper package relationships.

Specifically, my understanding of existing packging conventions (in
part derived from practice, and in part derived from the SuSE Package
Conventions document) a package consists of:

     <packagename>-<version>-<release>.<arch>.rpm

where,

     <version> ::= <major version>.<minor version>{.<other stuff>}
     <release> ::= <release number>[.<release version>]

and, it seems by convention,

     <major version>   ::= Usually a number
     <minor version>   ::= Usually a number
     <release number>  ::= Always a number, set to zero on version update
     <release version> ::= Always a number, set to zero on release update

However, within the spec file, if the release-tag has additional
information regarding the rpm provenance, such as Pascal's convention
of using "package-v.v-r.guru.distro.arch.rpm" where the release-tag
is, for example, "1.guru.suse90" -- can rpm installers still typically
track package sequences?  The SuSE Package Conventions document implies
a stricter standard for the release-tag.

If a more informative release-tag is used, would it then be advisable to
use the serial-tag?  Or is that tag now deprecated, or ignored by rpm
installation software?

On a related matter, what are the most portable conventions for package
naming and specifying version/release information?
 
Thanks!

Hannes.



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com