[Dev] [RFC] Voting about package naming for packages modified from Arch
Luke Shumaker
lukeshu at sbcglobal.net
Sun Aug 31 03:31:04 GMT 2014
At Sat, 30 Aug 2014 16:53:41 -0300,
André Silva wrote:
> On 08/29/2014 03:20 PM, Michał Masłowski wrote:
> > Luke Shumaker 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}.${_basekernel}"
>
> i support the pkgrel=${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.
sticking _basekernel into pkgrel means that
1) The maintainer doesn't have to dick around with pkgrel when just
bumping _basekernel.
2) The package version reflects which kernel version the package was
built for; otherwise the user would have to actually inspect the
package to do this.
> 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.
--
Happy hacking,
~ Luke Shumaker
More information about the Dev
mailing list