W dniu 22.02.2020 o 23:17, Wolfgang Rosenauer pisze:
Hi,
I'm wondering that since some time but again found some examples where I just don't understand our current naming conventions.
The examples I mean
python3-mailman golang-github-prometheus-node_exporter golang-github-prometheus-prometheus
I somewhat understand such a naming convention for typical modules. This is what we had since ages and it's important if a module is for python2, python3 or golang indeed.
But for standalone software like mailman, prometheus-node-exporter and prometheus itself?
I don't care if the thing is written in python, golang or $WHATEVER. I also do not care if it's hosted on github.
Debian package names are e.g. prometheus prometheus-node-exporter
So is this really a reasonable approach to package naming?
Wolfgang
There's a rpm's feature called "Provides:". You can check what a package provides using "zypper --no-refresh info --provides package_name". In your examples python3-mailman provides mailman and golang-github-prometheus-node_exporter provides node_exporter and prometheus(node_exporter). (unfortunately golang-github-prometheus-prometheus has no extra provided names) If you for example type "sudo zypper install mailman", zypper will do the right thing and install python3-mailman. So as long as package has good "Provides", it doesn't matter if it follows any other naming convention.