Re: Latest SPEC files for GNOME2

[Chris Chabot <chabotc reviewboard com>]

Gregory Leblanc wrote:

> Cool!  Have you looked at the latest spec files/packages on
> ftp.gnome.org?  In particular, things like gtk+, pango, ORBit2, and so
> on have been split into more packages, and removed the 2 from the file
> names.  Everyone except for me hates the renaming, but at least look at
> the library splits.
Hey Greg,

Yes, i'm quite familiar with naming conventions like that. And most 
people and packagers will argue that it is a lot better way to package 
libraries. (Forinstance, take a look at mandrake, it does the same thing 
to some extend). Also long discussions about packaging with dobey (from 
ximian) have shown me what the 'better way of packaging should be' and 
'how much redhat packages suck' ;-)

However with the package naming i tried to stick with the redhat package 
names and format (these are redhat packages right?) Since 7.2 already 
has some gnome2 (alpha) libs on it, and since Redhat 8 (and current 
rawhide, gnomehide) already use this naming format to, it would seem 
futile to break with redhat's way of doing things and trying to improve 
there platform ;-)

I would say that for debian and mandrake packaging, the split between 
-libs, -doc, -demos, ... etc with new naming conventions will be the way 
to go, but for a redhat platform, don't try to force it. When in rome, 
act like the romans right?

This way, if we stay diligent, people will be able to run either the 
redhat provided gnome, gnomehide, ximian gnome or plain gnome, and 
upgrade between packages from any of those sources. (If only ximian and 
redhat would stop their Epoch battles! but thats a different rant 
altogether)

Specialy this clean upgrade path seems important to me. We don't want 
people stuck without year old gnome releases, when so many exiting 
things are happening on a weekely basis. Also we want them to test, test 
and test!

My gut feeling tells me to keep acting like a roman..

   -- Chris