[OpenAFS-devel] Trial Baloon for Red Hat packaging

[Derek Atkins]

sodre <sodre@wam.umd.edu> writes:

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

If nothing is going to change, then what's the point of the extra
(useless) information?  It is theoretically possible to have multiple
kernel versions for the same Red Hat release, so that's why I've put
it there (not that the infrastructure would support that at this
time).  I just don't understand your reasoning here.  Could you please
elaborate?

-derek

> 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
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 

-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       warlord@MIT.EDU                        PGP key available