[Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch

[André Silva]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/29/2014 03:20 PM, Michał Masłowski wrote:
>> e. Whe packaging a kernel module package (or other package 
>> specific to a kernel version), name it 
>> "${_pkgbase}${_kernelname}" and give it 
>> pkgrel=${archrel}.parabola${parabolarel}.${_basekernel}" f. The
>> kernelname/version stuff we already just switched to.
> 
> Ok.
> 
Yesterday, I thought about it and don't agree with it because if we
would get more simple and reliable ${pkgname} without suffixes, we
should do the same with pkgrel. i support the
pkgrel=${archver}.parabola${parabolarel} idea, because it means which
it's being maintained by us, but it should be for all packages without
exceptions.
Add ${_basekernel} on kernel module packages is not ok because
confuses the users and developers need to make special rules for each
specific case.
Also, upstream releases on those packages are done due config
modifications (eg: enable/disable a module or feature from config
files), not only kernelbase upstream.
In my opinion, we should have less rules and be more KISS.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=/pFl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----