Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:45 AM, David Tardon wrote: > On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 07:11:44AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > > Why was Java 1.4 succeeded by Java 5? Why was ICU 4.8.1 succeeded by > ICU > > 49.1? Why does systemd have version 197 instead of 1.9.7 or somesuch? > > > > If you look a

Re: Explicit versioning of library names [was Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit]

Dne 8.4.2013 17:05, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a): On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 12:28:01PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 5.4.2013 22:03, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a): On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 10:53:53AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 4.4.2013 20:07, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a): There is also an unwritten (I

Re: Explicit versioning of library names [was Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit]

On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 12:28:01PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 5.4.2013 22:03, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a): > >On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 10:53:53AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >>Dne 4.4.2013 20:07, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a): > >>>There is also an unwritten (I think it's unwritten. A quick search d

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 07:11:44AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > Why was Java 1.4 succeeded by Java 5? Why was ICU 4.8.1 succeeded by ICU > 49.1? Why does systemd have version 197 instead of 1.9.7 or somesuch? > > If you look at the source code and the package names, Java wasn't really > ren

Re: Explicit versioning of library names [was Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit]

Dne 5.4.2013 22:03, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a): On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 10:53:53AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 4.4.2013 20:07, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a): There is also an unwritten (I think it's unwritten. A quick search didn't find it in the guidelines) rule that in Fedora, the current versi

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Hi On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > Why was Java 1.4 succeeded by Java 5? Why was ICU 4.8.1 succeeded by ICU > 49.1? Why does systemd have version 197 instead of 1.9.7 or somesuch? > > If you look at the source code and the package names, Java wasn't really > renumbe

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

> Why was Java 1.4 succeeded by Java 5? Why was ICU 4.8.1 succeeded by ICU 49.1? Why does systemd have version 197 instead of 1.9.7 or somesuch? If you look at the source code and the package names, Java wasn't really renumbered that badly, Java 1.4 was succeeded by Java 1.5, and Java 1.5 by Java

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 01:55:06PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Yes, I am exaggerating here, but does it make sense to have package > python3-3.3? Why we don't have python3-1.0? Where is the version 1.0 > of python 3? Why we duplicating the version? Non of these question > makes you think that we ar

Re: Explicit versioning of library names [was Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit]

On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 10:53:53AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 4.4.2013 20:07, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a): > > > >There is also an unwritten (I think it's unwritten. A quick search didn't > >find it in the guidelines) rule that in Fedora, the current version of the > >library carries the base n

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 4.4.2013 20:36, Colin Walters napsal(a): On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 21:29 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: From technical perspective, there's zero need to change how multiversion packages work. Its a widely used (at least both in rpm and dpkg worlds) and well-understood mechanism to slap extra q

Re: Explicit versioning of library names [was Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit]

Dne 4.4.2013 20:07, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a): There is also an unwritten (I think it's unwritten. A quick search didn't find it in the guidelines) rule that in Fedora, the current version of the library carries the base name. Older libraries carry the version in the name. Interesting ... it

Re: Explicit versioning of library names [was Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit]

On 04/04/2013 08:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > After sending this I saw mrunge's announcement of updating the > python-django package to 1.5 in rawhide and talked to sgallagh on irc. > I misunderstood the basic plan, so there's no guidelines > incompatibility here :-) > > The plan is to re

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 04/04/13 09:33 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Reindl, thank you for the tip. I have one reading tip for you in exchange: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour . Apparently, one man cannot do everything. But if you want to pick up my duties in Fedora, I'll be more than happy to solve this i

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 21:29 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > From technical perspective, there's zero need to change how > multiversion packages work. Its a widely used (at least both in rpm and > dpkg worlds) and well-understood mechanism to slap extra qualifiers at > the end of the name to ac

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 04/04/2013 02:55 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Ok, so what is the purpose of version field than? Lets drop it, if nobody cares. You could remove a few lines in Fedora, depsolver could be dumber. The version field provides one part of the sorting information (y is newer than x) within an identifyin

Re: Explicit versioning of library names [was Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit]

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 08:07:24AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Sorry, I forgot to reply to this. This was discussed on the thread > > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermai

Explicit versioning of library names [was Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit]

On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 08:07:24AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 03/28/2013 12:47 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > > Note: Is this a hypothetical? I'm unable to find a > > python-django14 (or other versioned python-django) package build

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Le Mer 3 avril 2013 21:00, Richard W.M. Jones a écrit : > So we have, I think, four choices: > > (1) embrace the software, allow it to be shipped (or even ship it > ourselves), and don't care about the security problems > > (2) deal with the combinatorial security explosion of having multiple > p

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Am 04.04.2013 18:21, schrieb Vít Ondruch: > Dne 4.4.2013 18:11, Mattias Ellert napsal(a): >> tor 2013-04-04 klockan 17:29 +0200 skrev Vít Ondruch: >>> Dne 4.4.2013 16:20, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): esthetics. >>> May be I misunderstood the thread, but wasn't this the main point since >>> t

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 4.4.2013 18:23, Reindl Harald napsal(a): Am 04.04.2013 18:21, schrieb Vít Ondruch: Dne 4.4.2013 18:11, Mattias Ellert napsal(a): tor 2013-04-04 klockan 17:29 +0200 skrev Vít Ondruch: Dne 4.4.2013 16:20, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): esthetics. May be I misunderstood the thread, but wasn't t

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 4.4.2013 18:11, Mattias Ellert napsal(a): tor 2013-04-04 klockan 17:29 +0200 skrev Vít Ondruch: Dne 4.4.2013 16:20, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): esthetics. May be I misunderstood the thread, but wasn't this the main point since the beginning? To prevent the "naming-with-version" exploit as i

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

tor 2013-04-04 klockan 17:29 +0200 skrev Vít Ondruch: > Dne 4.4.2013 16:20, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): > > esthetics. > > > > May be I misunderstood the thread, but wasn't this the main point since > the beginning? To prevent the "naming-with-version" exploit as is still > stated in the $SUBJECT?

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 4.4.2013 17:34, seth vidal napsal(a): On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:29:26 +0200 Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 4.4.2013 16:20, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): esthetics. May be I misunderstood the thread, but wasn't this the main point since the beginning? To prevent the "naming-with-version" exploit as is

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:29:26 +0200 Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 4.4.2013 16:20, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): > > esthetics. > > > > May be I misunderstood the thread, but wasn't this the main point > since the beginning? To prevent the "naming-with-version" exploit as > is still stated in the $SUBJECT?

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 4.4.2013 16:20, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): esthetics. May be I misunderstood the thread, but wasn't this the main point since the beginning? To prevent the "naming-with-version" exploit as is still stated in the $SUBJECT? It might looks like the thread would be named like "how to instal

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 4.4.2013 15:47, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> Since .spec file is named the same as package, then you cannot merge >> straight forward the changes from one package into another. >>

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 4.4.2013 15:48, Florian Festi napsal(a): On 04/04/2013 03:42 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Although they might support, and Kernel would be first user, even for Kernel, there is used hack instead of systematic solution as far as I know. As long as Kernel will be treated specially in this regard, th

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 4.4.2013 15:47, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Vít Ondruch > wrote: Dne 3.4.2013 18:15, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Vít Ondruch mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: Dne 3.4.2013 15:59, Milos

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 4.4.2013 06:47, James Antill napsal(a): On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 15:22 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: Ok, if we don't want to break anything, we have two options 1) Just introduce new package rails30 and new applications can depend on it 2) Move the rails package to Rails 3.0 and reintroduce rails2

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 04/04/2013 03:42 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Although they might support, and Kernel would be first user, even for > Kernel, there is used hack instead of systematic solution as far as I > know. As long as Kernel will be treated specially in this regard, there > is not much to do on my side. As lo

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 3.4.2013 18:15, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> Dne 3.4.2013 15:59, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): >> >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> ... and now, can we be spec

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 4.4.2013 14:48, Florian Festi napsal(a): On 04/04/2013 01:55 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: I am not asking RPM developers to change policy, I am asking RPM developers to lay out foundation. It does not make sense to change policy, if there are no tools to fulfill it. Well, Fedora demanding a set o

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 3.4.2013 18:15, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Vít Ondruch > wrote: Dne 3.4.2013 15:59, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Vít Ondruch mailto:vondr...@redhat.com>> wrote: Ok, so lets say we introd

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 04/04/2013 01:55 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > I am not asking RPM developers to change policy, I am asking RPM > developers to lay out foundation. It does not make sense to change > policy, if there are no tools to fulfill it. Well, Fedora demanding a set of tools will much more likely result in so

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 3.4.2013 18:11, Florian Festi napsal(a): On 04/03/2013 05:02 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 3.4.2013 15:59, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Vít Ondruch Sorry, but the rpm developers are the wrong people to talk to when it comes to Fedora packaging policies. I am not

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 15:22 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Ok, if we don't want to break anything, we have two options > 1) Just introduce new package rails30 and new applications can depend on it > 2) Move the rails package to Rails 3.0 and reintroduce rails23 > compatibility package > > That look

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 08:39:38PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > And that is just a rehash of the old "it's too much work to help the > upstreams of my deps to fix their stuff, I'll workaround it locally" > argument. > > That way of working does not scale. It's just a developer shortcut to > avo

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Le Mer 3 avril 2013 18:19, Miloslav Trmač a écrit : > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: > >> On 2013-04-03, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >> > "How does (yum update) work with multiple installed versions?" >> > >> > We already can install simultaneously 25 different RPMs with the same >>

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2013-04-03, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > > "How does (yum update) work with multiple installed versions?" > > > > We already can install simultaneously 25 different RPMs with the same > > %{name}. But what does (yum uprade) do when the repositor

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 3.4.2013 15:59, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> Ok, so lets say we introduce the rails23 compatibility packages (which is >> IMO the better option, since the nonversioned package shoul

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 04/03/2013 05:02 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 3.4.2013 15:59, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): >> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Vít Ondruch > That looks quite simple, but you doesn't count that what is called >> Ruby on Rails is collection of 40 packages (the number vary from >> version t

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 2013-04-03, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > "How does (yum update) work with multiple installed versions?" > > We already can install simultaneously 25 different RPMs with the same > %{name}. But what does (yum uprade) do when the repositories one month > later contain 35 different RPMs with that name

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 3.4.2013 15:59, Miloslav Trmač napsal(a): On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Vít Ondruch > wrote: Lets suppose we are in F14 timeframe and 2.3 are the newest Rails available and lets say we have in Fedora several Rails applications using Rails 2.3 API. Th

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Lets suppose we are in F14 timeframe and 2.3 are the newest Rails > available and lets say we have in Fedora several Rails applications using > Rails 2.3 API. They work just perfect to suit needs of their users. > > Now, in F15 timeframe, Rails

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 3.4.2013 14:12, Florian Festi napsal(a): On 04/03/2013 12:58 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: The only thing you get wrong is that you take a look at Fedora packages and do some statistics. You don't see the packages which could be in Fedora if RPM/YUM would do better job. Just as an example, I guess

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 04/03/2013 12:58 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > The only thing you get wrong is that you take a look at Fedora packages > and do some statistics. You don't see the packages which could be in > Fedora if RPM/YUM would do better job. > > Just as an example, I guess everybody would welcome Redmine [1] i

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/28/2013 12:47 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > One disclaimer to start off -- > > We're on a big tangent here. If I understood the original poster > correctly, he'd concerned about what we name parallel installable > versions of packages rather tha

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2013-03-29, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: > >> On 2013-03-29, Tomas Mraz wrote: > >> Basically yes. It's call for semantically separeted API identifier. Now > >> you have NEVRA string: > >> >

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 3.4.2013 12:26, Florian Festi napsal(a): On 03/29/2013 10:33 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: To me, these are very different aspects - should RPM/YUM be able to support multiple parallel versions without the naming hacks? Yes. Should Fedora as a distro support numbers of multiple versions of pa

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 03/28/2013 05:45 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Sorry to say that, but neither my sarcasm nor your comment brings > anything new. If this problem was put first time on the table in 2002, > then there already passed 10 years of excuses. Well, this does not even roughly reflect the history of rpm. You

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 03/29/2013 10:33 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: > To me, these are very different aspects - should RPM/YUM be able to support > multiple parallel versions without the naming hacks? Yes. Should Fedora as a > distro support numbers of multiple versions of packages? In my opinion, we > should try to

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 14:16 +, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2013-04-02, seth vidal wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:27:43 + (UTC) > > Petr Pisar wrote: > >> > >> Misusing names does not allow all of that. > > > > misusing? Is this, again, another metaphor? Please speak plainly. What > > do you

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:16:31 + (UTC) Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2013-04-02, seth vidal wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:27:43 + (UTC) > > Petr Pisar wrote: > >> > >> Misusing names does not allow all of that. > > > > misusing? Is this, again, another metaphor? Please speak plainly. > > What

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:02:46 + (UTC) Petr Pisar wrote: > Or maybe there are APIs 3.8, 3.9, and 4.0 and we want to express (3.8 > or 3.9), but poor RPM does not handle `or'? After reading these and other comments from you, Petr, it seems to me you are not interested in making things better, yo

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 2013-04-02, seth vidal wrote: > On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:27:43 + (UTC) > Petr Pisar wrote: >> >> Misusing names does not allow all of that. > > misusing? Is this, again, another metaphor? Please speak plainly. What > do you mean here? Where is the misuse? > foo1, foo2, foo3 -- there is no or

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 2013-03-29, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: >> On 2013-03-29, Tomas Mraz wrote: >> Basically yes. It's call for semantically separeted API identifier. Now >> you have NEVRA string: >> >> Where we have API? Nowhere because Fedora assumes only one vers

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 13:27:43 + (UTC) Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2013-03-29, seth vidal wrote: > >> > >> What's Architecture good for? To allow multilib. To install more > >> instances of the same version. And yum ignores Architecture on > >> purpose. But don't tell anybody that. Otherwise he cou

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 2013-03-29, seth vidal wrote: > On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:01:29 + (UTC) > Petr Pisar wrote: > >> >> What's Architecture good for? To allow multilib. To install more >> instances of the same version. And yum ignores Architecture on >> purpose. But don't tell anybody that. Otherwise he could n

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 29.3.2013 22:49, Nicolas Mailhot napsal(a): This is what I am taking about: http://www.devconf.cz/slides/mls-pkgmgmt2.pdf http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNwNF19oFqM The most interesting parts of the presentation IMHO are : 1. the acknowledgement that sometimes, you really need operators su

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 14:42 +0100, Jan Zelený wrote: > On 29. 3. 2013 at 13:22:40, Petr Pisar wrote: > > On 2013-03-29, Jan Zelený wrote: > > > In this case we proposed another solution which was turned down (I'm not > > > sure exactly why): > > > > > > Each package requiring multiversion support

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 03/28/2013 03:26 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: To throw an opinion into the pot, I like the current system. It makes perfect sense to me to consider 'gnome-desktop' and 'gnome-desktop3' to be two different things, 'autoconf' and 'autoconf213' as two different things, and so on and so forth. Conc

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2013-03-29, Tomas Mraz wrote: > Basically yes. It's call for semantically separeted API identifier. Now > you have NEVRA string: > > Where we have API? Nowhere because Fedora assumes only one version of > a package. API should work like Arc

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: > Just a quick note: > Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you (and some other > people) don't distinguish between tooling for accommodating multiple > versions of packages and actually supporting these packages. > To me, these

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Tomas Mraz wrote: > > Here is a long list of technical reasons why your desire to have all > > the parallel installable versions of "foo" called "foo" is not going to > > work. > > I can imagine only one reason for this desire - so that the user can do > just "y

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

>>> This is what I am taking about: >>> >>> http://www.devconf.cz/slides/mls-pkgmgmt2.pdf >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNwNF19oFqM The most interesting parts of the presentation IMHO are : 1. the acknowledgement that sometimes, you really need operators such as AND and OR to express some co

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Le Ven 29 mars 2013 01:38, juanmabc a écrit : > Both are the same package, only changes major version, if from the start > multiversion would have been integrated, nobody would have think about it > another way. I fear you're under the illusion the dearth of multiversion packages in Fedora is du

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:40:35 +0100 Jan Zelený wrote: > > > This is very valid concern. However I'm not sure it's something > > > that can be solved just by the multiversion support in rpm/yum, > > > there are more pieces here to be put together. > > > > > > My first impression of this is that so

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:42:14 +0100 Jan Zelený wrote: > On 29. 3. 2013 at 13:22:40, Petr Pisar wrote: > > On 2013-03-29, Jan Zelený wrote: > > > In this case we proposed another solution which was turned down > > > (I'm not sure exactly why): > > > > > > Each package requiring multiversion suppo

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:01:29 + (UTC) Petr Pisar wrote: > > What's Architecture good for? To allow multilib. To install more > instances of the same version. And yum ignores Architecture on > purpose. But don't tell anybody that. Otherwise he could not claim we > do not implement parallel ins

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Am 29.03.2013 10:29, schrieb Vít Ondruch: > http://www.devconf.cz/slides/mls-pkgmgmt2.pdf > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNwNF19oFqM > > They are using far more advanced techniques using RPM. > > Yes, I am aware that it is slightly of-topic, but that was generic remark. > The point is, they a

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 29.3.2013 15:51, Jan Zelený napsal(a): On 29. 3. 2013 at 14:38:49, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 29.3.2013 13:28, Jan Zelený napsal(a): But the point I was making is that the technical solution of multiversion packaging has a potential to bring such a mess in spec files that they become unmaintana

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 29. 3. 2013 at 14:38:49, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 29.3.2013 13:28, Jan Zelený napsal(a): > > But the point I was making is that the technical solution of multiversion > > packaging has a potential to bring such a mess in spec files that they > > become unmaintanable and therefore the solution wo

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 29.3.2013 14:42, Jan Zelený napsal(a): On 29. 3. 2013 at 10:29:01, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 29.3.2013 02:09, Michael Scherer napsal(a): Le jeudi 28 mars 2013 à 17:45 +0100, Vít Ondruch a écrit : If this problem was put first time on the table in 2002, then there already passed 10 years of ex

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 2013-03-29, Tomas Mraz wrote: > > I can imagine only one reason for this desire - so that the user can do > just "yum install foo" when he just wants the latest version of "foo". > Basically yes. It's call for semantically separeted API identifier. Now you have NEVRA string: What's Name good f

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 29. 3. 2013 at 10:29:01, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 29.3.2013 02:09, Michael Scherer napsal(a): > > Le jeudi 28 mars 2013 à 17:45 +0100, Vít Ondruch a écrit : > >> If this problem was put first time on the table in 2002, > >> then there already passed 10 years of excuses. > > > > Or that in 10 ye

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 29. 3. 2013 at 13:22:40, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2013-03-29, Jan Zelený wrote: > > In this case we proposed another solution which was turned down (I'm not > > sure exactly why): > > > > Each package requiring multiversion support would have all these > > versions almost the same as they are ri

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 29.3.2013 13:28, Jan Zelený napsal(a): But the point I was making is that the technical solution of multiversion packaging has a potential to bring such a mess in spec files that they become unmaintanable and therefore the solution would be practically useless. Any example here? Could you s

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 29. 3. 2013 at 12:55:54, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2013-03-28, Jan Zelený wrote: > > On 28. 3. 2013 at 13:31:07, Petr Pisar wrote: > >> E.g. this post has been sent to an hour ago: > >> > Subject: Re: [Icecast-dev] Packages of icecast 2.4-beta? > >> > > >> > > At Sourcefabric we are testing Opus

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 29. 3. 2013 at 13:48:21, Jan Zelený wrote: > On 29. 3. 2013 at 12:37:18, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 01:15:53PM +0100, Jan Zelený wrote: > > > Example: > > > python-3.2.3-7.fc17 (metapackage) > > > python2-2.7.3-7.2.fc17 > > > python3-3.2.3-7.fc17 > > > > > > Met

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 2013-03-29, Jan Zelený wrote: > In this case we proposed another solution which was turned down (I'm not sure > exactly why): > > Each package requiring multiversion support would have all these > versions almost the same as they are right now. The only difference > would be that there is a me

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 2013-03-28, Jan Zelený wrote: > On 28. 3. 2013 at 13:31:07, Petr Pisar wrote: >> E.g. this post has been sent to an hour ago: >> > Subject: Re: [Icecast-dev] Packages of icecast 2.4-beta? >> > >> > > At Sourcefabric we are testing Opus streams from the Airtime >> > > broadcast automation syst

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 29. 3. 2013 at 12:37:18, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 01:15:53PM +0100, Jan Zelený wrote: > > Example: > > python-3.2.3-7.fc17 (metapackage) > > python2-2.7.3-7.2.fc17 > > python3-3.2.3-7.fc17 > > > > Metapackage "python" could be pointing to whatever version the ma

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 02:09:20AM +0100, Michael Scherer wrote: > If I am not wrong, on debian, you can have 1 single source package that > by magic could generate multiple packages for multiple runtimes ( for > example, for python ). The issue of having multiple stack remain ( ie, 2 > stack just

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 01:15:53PM +0100, Jan Zelený wrote: > Example: > python-3.2.3-7.fc17 (metapackage) > python2-2.7.3-7.2.fc17 > python3-3.2.3-7.fc17 > > Metapackage "python" could be pointing to whatever version the maintainer > thinks is the best, obviously the version of the metapac

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 29. 3. 2013 at 05:33:59, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: > - Original Message - > > > On 28. 3. 2013 at 17:45:27, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 28.3.2013 17:13, seth vidal napsal(a): > > > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:36:27 +0100 > > > > > > > > Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Ah, are we goin

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 29. 3. 2013 at 11:02:11, Tomas Mraz wrote: > On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 14:43 -0400, James Antill wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 13:53 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 28.3.2013 13:30, Jan Zelený napsal(a): > > > > On 28. 3. 2013 at 12:59:44, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > >> Dne 28.3.2013 12:09, Flor

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 03/29/2013 12:02 PM, Tomas Mraz wrote: On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 14:43 -0400, James Antill wrote: On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 13:53 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 28.3.2013 13:30, Jan Zelený napsal(a): On 28. 3. 2013 at 12:59:44, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 28.3.2013 12:09, Florian Festi napsal(a): This

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 14:43 -0400, James Antill wrote: > On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 13:53 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 28.3.2013 13:30, Jan Zelený napsal(a): > > > On 28. 3. 2013 at 12:59:44, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > >> Dne 28.3.2013 12:09, Florian Festi napsal(a): > > >>> This is done to make life

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 28.3.2013 19:43, James Antill napsal(a): Dear James, I just hear arguments why something not do. Could you please also come with variant why to do something? Think positive about the issue? You try to convince me that we are living in prefect world and RPM/YUM are doing already everything

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

- Original Message - > On 28. 3. 2013 at 17:45:27, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 28.3.2013 17:13, seth vidal napsal(a): > > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:36:27 +0100 > > > > > > Vít Ondruch wrote: > > >> > > >> Ah, are we going to distribute this howtos instead of binary > > >> RPM's > > >> now?

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Dne 29.3.2013 02:09, Michael Scherer napsal(a): Le jeudi 28 mars 2013 à 17:45 +0100, Vít Ondruch a écrit : If this problem was put first time on the table in 2002, then there already passed 10 years of excuses. Or that in 10 years, we didn't found a proper solution that was sustainable. It

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 28. 3. 2013 at 17:45:27, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 28.3.2013 17:13, seth vidal napsal(a): > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:36:27 +0100 > > > > Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> > >> Ah, are we going to distribute this howtos instead of binary RPM's > >> now? It is 4 easy steps, everybody can handle it. May be

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 28/03/13 05:38 PM, juanmabc wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: I'm not sure that 'fixing' it provides any significant benefit other than looking tidy in pontificating emails. I mean, what's the actual problem caused by 'gnome-desktop' vs. 'gnome-desktop3'? I think its clear, and also seems clear

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Mar 28, 2013 6:09 PM, "Michael Scherer" wrote: > > Le jeudi 28 mars 2013 à 17:45 +0100, Vít Ondruch a écrit : > > > > If this problem was put first time on the table in 2002, > > then there already passed 10 years of excuses. > > Or that in 10 years, we didn't found a proper solution that was >

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Le jeudi 28 mars 2013 à 17:45 +0100, Vít Ondruch a écrit : > If this problem was put first time on the table in 2002, > then there already passed 10 years of excuses. Or that in 10 years, we didn't found a proper solution that was sustainable. > It is interesting to see > that our competitio

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Thursday 28 March 2013 12:13:05 seth vidal wrote: > The trouble is this - the solution you and others have suggested > doesn't actually solve the problem it just moves it around. It also > makes the situation of dep resolution and global updates that much more > difficult. Which makes the manage

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On Thursday 28 March 2013 14:43:06 James Antill wrote: > I agree this is a problem, everyone who knows how Fedora packaging > works has said, to you, some variant of: > The technical problem is being able to install multiple versions of a > package, and you can do that now (and have been able to

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Adam Williamson wrote: >I'm not sure that 'fixing' it provides any significant benefit other than >looking tidy in pontificating emails. I mean, what's the actual problem caused >by 'gnome-desktop' vs. 'gnome-desktop3'? I think its clear, and also seems clear there is not much willing to code/imp

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

On 28/03/13 03:01 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: Nico Kadel-Garcia Email: nka...@gmail.com Sent from iPhone On Mar 28, 2013, at 15:43, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 20:35 +0100, juanmabc wrote: - pkg-1.0.x installed (and with its own updates) - pkg-2.0.x installed (and with i

Re: package, package2, package3 naming-with-version exploit

Nico Kadel-Garcia Email: nka...@gmail.com Sent from iPhone On Mar 28, 2013, at 15:43, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 20:35 +0100, juanmabc wrote: > >> - pkg-1.0.x installed (and with its own updates) >> - pkg-2.0.x installed (and with its own updates) >> note the difference, *

  1   2   >