[OpenAFS-devel] Trial Baloon for Red Hat packaging

[sodre]

I know nothing is going to change... that is why I said to go with the
most complete version including the kernel version.

On Tue, 2001-09-25 at 15:11, Derek Atkins wrote:
> All the way?  You mean make _all_ the packages look like '6.2.22.1'?
> What's your reasoning for this?  None of the user-space code really
> depends on the sysname.
> 
> -derek
> 
> sodre <sodre@wam.umd.edu> writes:
> 
> > Since you already made up your mind on increasing the name... go all the
> > way with option 2...
> > 
> > Patrick Sodre
> > On Mon, 2001-09-24 at 23:32, Derek Atkins wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I'm looking into making some small (relatively) changes to the Red Hat
> > > packaging as I add krb5 support.  Before I went ahead with these
> > > changes I wanted to ask people for opinions.  The two major changes I
> > > propose to make are:
> > > 
> > > 	1) Change the "release" number of all the packages.  In
> > >            particular, remove the kernel version information and add
> > >            the Red Hat release version to all of the packages.  In
> > >            other words, instead of packages named like
> > >            "openafs-1.2.1-22.1" we'd have "openafs-1.2.1-6.2.1" (for
> > >            RH6.2) or "openafs-1.2.1-7.2.1" (for RH7.1).  This should
> > >            have no direct impact on users, as it is only the 'release'
> > >            information that is changing.
> > > 
> > > 	2) Change the "release" of the openafs-kernel package to
> > >            include both the RedHat release and the OS version.  Again
> > >            this shouldn't have any impact on users, except for
> > >            information purposes.  This would mean that the packages
> > >            would be named either:
> > > 		openafs-kernel-1.2.1-22.6.2.1
> > > 	   or
> > > 		openafs-kernel-1.2.1-6.2.22.1
> > > 
> > > Does anyone have a preference for which method is used in #2?  Do we
> > > need both kernel and OS versions here, or would just the OS (RedHat)
> > > version be sufficient?
> > > 
> > > Any suggestions, observations, etc. are welcome.  I would prefer
> > > to stay away from any anti-RedHat comments, please; I acknowledge
> > > that there are limitations in the RedHat packaging model.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > -derek
> > > 
> > 
> > 
>