[PlanetCCRMA] package architecture is bad

[NGUYEN Ngoc Can]

Fernando,

Anaconda will accept : rosegarden4-0.8-2.i386.rpm


Le mer 20/11/2002 à 13:32, Mark Knecht a écrit :
> Can,
>    So anaconda would accept:
> 
> rosegarden4-0.8-2.rpm
> 
> or
> 
> rosegarden4-0.8-2.i386.rpm
> 
>    You didn't seem to cover the i386/i3686 part in your explanation below.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mark
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NGUYEN Ngoc Can [mailto:cnguyen@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 1:33 AM
> To: markknecht@attbi.com
> Cc: Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano; planetccrma@ccrma.Stanford.EDU
> Subject: RE: [PlanetCCRMA] package architecture is bad
> 
> 
> 
> hello Fernando and all,
> 
> yes Fernando, there's not really problem, when executing rpm -hiv
> rosegarden-4-0.8-2.i386.rpm .... it's running well ....
> 
> But problem only happen when i try to integrate the package
> rosegarden-4-0.8-2.i386.rpm into Red Hat distro (~/RedHat/base/comps
> file) .... So Anaconda expects it to be :
> 
> <name>-<version>-<release>.rpm
> 
> name : can be rosegarden or rosegarden4
> version : can be 4.0.8 or 0.8 or 4.0 etc ....
> release : can be 1 or 2 or 3 etc ....
> 
> thank you
> 
> bye
> 
> best regards
> 
> Can
> 
> Le mer 20/11/2002 à 01:06, Mark Knecht a écrit :
> > 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
> >
> --
> 
> NGUYEN Ngoc Can
> _______________
> 
> Red Hat France
> 
> 
> 
-- 

NGUYEN Ngoc Can
_______________

Red Hat France