On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 01:51:42PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 03. 03. 21 13:47, Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 1:33 PM Miro Hrončok <mhron...@redhat.com
<mailto:mhron...@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 03. 03. 21 12:49, Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
> Compat package prepared.
>
> Package autoconf269-2.69-1 provides:
>
> /usr/bin/autoconf269
> /usr/bin/autoheader269
> /usr/bin/autom4te269
> /usr/bin/autoreconf269
> /usr/bin/autoscan269
> /usr/bin/autoupdate269
> /usr/bin/ifnames269
> ...
>
> Parallel installation successful.
>
> Any suggestions/concerns are welcome.
My concerns are:
1) Why 269 and not 2.69?
Just a naming convention, if needed can be easily changed
There is no need to complicate stuff by removing the dot. The naming
convention for compat packages is to include the version:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#multiple
Agreed, but we do already have precedent in this case with autoconf213
and autoconf268.
I would prefer the installed executable(s) carry a -2.69 suffix. For
the package name I would say follow the convention we already have for
older autoconf packages.
Thanks,
--
David Cantrell <dcantr...@redhat.com>
Red Hat, Inc. | Boston, MA | EST5EDT
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
