[PlanetCCRMA] package architecture is bad

[Mark Knecht]

Fernando,
   When we get to the bottom of this, I suspect that he did not know that
there was a Rosegarden 2 and a Rosegarden 4. I think your naming is correct.
If it had been version 4.0.8, I would have expected to see

rosegarden-4.0.8-2

and not

rosegarden-4-0.8.2

I'll grant you, it escaped me for a minute what the issue was!

Thanks,
Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: planetccrma-admin@ccrma.Stanford.EDU
[mailto:planetccrma-admin@ccrma.Stanford.EDU]On Behalf Of Fernando Pablo
Lopez-Lezcano
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 10:30 AM
To: NGUYEN Ngoc Can
Cc: planetccrma@ccrma.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: [PlanetCCRMA] package architecture is bad


> these RPM package are not in the good architecture of naming ...
>
> bad naming :
>
> rosegarden-4-0.8-2.i386.rpm [7.3]
>
> rosegarden-4-0.8-2.i386.rpm [8.0]
>
> rosegarden-4-0.8-2.src.rpm [7.x|8.0]
>
> they have to be :
>
> rosegarden-4.0.8-2.src.rpm or
> rosegarden-0.8-2.src.rpm
>
> (rosegarden-4- .... is bad but rosegarden-4.xxxx iq good)

Thanks, but it turns out that the name of the software package is
"Rosegarden 4" as opposed to "Rosegarden". The version cannot be 4.0.8
as that is not the version of the package, and the name of the package
cannot be rosegarden alone as that is not the name of the package.

Maybe "Rosegarden4"? What is _exactly_ the problem? Do you have a URL
with package naming guidelines?

Rpm itself obviously does not complain or gets confused:
rpm -q --queryformat "%{NAME} <%{VERSION}> <%{RELEASE}>\n" rosegarden-4
rosegarden-4 <0.8> <2>

-- Fernando


_______________________________________________
PlanetCCRMA mailing list
PlanetCCRMA@ccrma.stanford.edu
http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/planetccrma