You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@qpid.apache.org by "Darryl L. Pierce" <dp...@redhat.com> on 2014/10/31 16:21:42 UTC
Fedora package renaming proposal
In Fedora we have the following bindings packages:
* python-qpid - pure Python bindings
* python-qpid_messaging - Swig bindings for Python
* perl-qpid - Swig bindings for Perl
* rubygem-qpid_messaging - Swig bindings for Ruby
Two issues were brought up with this:
1) The names are inconsistent, since Perl doesn't follow the same
naming convention as Ruby and Python.
2) Fedora recommends against using an underscore in a package's name [1].
This last issue doesn't come up in Debian and Ubuntu since packages
there were never allowed to have an underscore in their name since it's
only allowed to be the delimiter between name and version for a package.
To make things more consistent, and to abide by the naming rules, I'd
like to do the following:
* rename perl-qpid to perl-qpid-messaging
* rename rubygem-qpid_messaging to rubygem-qpid-messaging
* rename python-qpid_messagin to python-qpid-messaging
In each case the package would continue, for two releases of Fedora,
to obsolete and provide the previous package to allow a transition
period for any other packages. But I think this would get things to a
more consistent and discoverable state.
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators
--
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
Re: Fedora package renaming proposal
Posted by "Darryl L. Pierce" <dp...@redhat.com>.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:35:18AM -0400, Bill Freeman wrote:
> I'd prefer stability of names to consistency of names. Many firms or
> projects no longer have the engineer who set up their happily working
> dependencies. #2 is the more persuasive argument, but it is only a
> recommendation.
The Provides/Obsoletes fields in the spec should handle such situations.
If such companies do an upgrade, they would receive the new packages in
the process.
We can additionally provide a transition period where we provide an
empty package with the old name that depends on the new package name
which provides the bits.
--
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
Re: Fedora package renaming proposal
Posted by "Darryl L. Pierce" <dp...@redhat.com>.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:38:15AM -0400, Justin Ross wrote:
> If we can stick with underscores, I think there's a minimum-delta fix that
> addresses the first case:
>
> - rename perl-qpid to perl-qpid_messaging
> - add an alias for perl-qpid
This one may not go through. To rename the package, it would have to go
back through the package review process and would likely get rejected
due to the underscore.
--
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
Re: Fedora package renaming proposal
Posted by Justin Ross <jr...@apache.org>.
If we can stick with underscores, I think there's a minimum-delta fix that
addresses the first case:
- rename perl-qpid to perl-qpid_messaging
- add an alias for perl-qpid
Justin
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Bill Freeman <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd prefer stability of names to consistency of names. Many firms or
> projects no longer have the engineer who set up their happily working
> dependencies. #2 is the more persuasive argument, but it is only a
> recommendation.
>
> Bill.
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Darryl L. Pierce <dp...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In Fedora we have the following bindings packages:
> >
> > * python-qpid - pure Python bindings
> > * python-qpid_messaging - Swig bindings for Python
> > * perl-qpid - Swig bindings for Perl
> > * rubygem-qpid_messaging - Swig bindings for Ruby
> >
> > Two issues were brought up with this:
> >
> > 1) The names are inconsistent, since Perl doesn't follow the same
> > naming convention as Ruby and Python.
> > 2) Fedora recommends against using an underscore in a package's name
> [1].
> >
> > This last issue doesn't come up in Debian and Ubuntu since packages
> > there were never allowed to have an underscore in their name since it's
> > only allowed to be the delimiter between name and version for a package.
> >
> > To make things more consistent, and to abide by the naming rules, I'd
> > like to do the following:
> >
> > * rename perl-qpid to perl-qpid-messaging
> > * rename rubygem-qpid_messaging to rubygem-qpid-messaging
> > * rename python-qpid_messagin to python-qpid-messaging
> >
> > In each case the package would continue, for two releases of Fedora,
> > to obsolete and provide the previous package to allow a transition
> > period for any other packages. But I think this would get things to a
> > more consistent and discoverable state.
> >
> > [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators
> >
> > --
> > Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
> > Delivering value year after year.
> > Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
> > http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
> >
> >
>
Re: Fedora package renaming proposal
Posted by Bill Freeman <ke...@gmail.com>.
I'd prefer stability of names to consistency of names. Many firms or
projects no longer have the engineer who set up their happily working
dependencies. #2 is the more persuasive argument, but it is only a
recommendation.
Bill.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Darryl L. Pierce <dp...@redhat.com>
wrote:
> In Fedora we have the following bindings packages:
>
> * python-qpid - pure Python bindings
> * python-qpid_messaging - Swig bindings for Python
> * perl-qpid - Swig bindings for Perl
> * rubygem-qpid_messaging - Swig bindings for Ruby
>
> Two issues were brought up with this:
>
> 1) The names are inconsistent, since Perl doesn't follow the same
> naming convention as Ruby and Python.
> 2) Fedora recommends against using an underscore in a package's name [1].
>
> This last issue doesn't come up in Debian and Ubuntu since packages
> there were never allowed to have an underscore in their name since it's
> only allowed to be the delimiter between name and version for a package.
>
> To make things more consistent, and to abide by the naming rules, I'd
> like to do the following:
>
> * rename perl-qpid to perl-qpid-messaging
> * rename rubygem-qpid_messaging to rubygem-qpid-messaging
> * rename python-qpid_messagin to python-qpid-messaging
>
> In each case the package would continue, for two releases of Fedora,
> to obsolete and provide the previous package to allow a transition
> period for any other packages. But I think this would get things to a
> more consistent and discoverable state.
>
> [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators
>
> --
> Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
> Delivering value year after year.
> Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
> http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
>
>
Re: Fedora package renaming proposal
Posted by "Darryl L. Pierce" <dp...@redhat.com>.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:44:28AM -0400, Alan Conway wrote:
> I think using foo-qpid-messaging is good because it is good - these
> packages are just the qpid messaging API client. I think python-qpid is
> not good. It is also a qpid messaging API client, it doesn't have any
> other parts of qpid in it. I would suggest something like:
> python-pure-qpid-messaging
> python-native-qpid-messaging
> to make it clear how it differs from python-qpid-messaging.
I agree with Rafi that we should avoid "native" here since that's likely
misleading. Depending on the long term plans for the pure bindings, I
would leave them as "python-qpid".
--
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
Re: Fedora package renaming proposal
Posted by Rafael Schloming <rh...@alum.mit.edu>.
I'd suggest avoiding "native" as a term since it can be ambiguous.
--Rafael
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-10-31 at 11:21 -0400, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> > In Fedora we have the following bindings packages:
> >
> > * python-qpid - pure Python bindings
> > * python-qpid_messaging - Swig bindings for Python
> > * perl-qpid - Swig bindings for Perl
> > * rubygem-qpid_messaging - Swig bindings for Ruby
> >
> > Two issues were brought up with this:
> >
> > 1) The names are inconsistent, since Perl doesn't follow the same
> > naming convention as Ruby and Python.
> > 2) Fedora recommends against using an underscore in a package's name
> [1].
> >
> > This last issue doesn't come up in Debian and Ubuntu since packages
> > there were never allowed to have an underscore in their name since it's
> > only allowed to be the delimiter between name and version for a package.
> >
> > To make things more consistent, and to abide by the naming rules, I'd
> > like to do the following:
> >
> > * rename perl-qpid to perl-qpid-messaging
> > * rename rubygem-qpid_messaging to rubygem-qpid-messaging
> > * rename python-qpid_messagin to python-qpid-messaging
> >
> > In each case the package would continue, for two releases of Fedora,
> > to obsolete and provide the previous package to allow a transition
> > period for any other packages. But I think this would get things to a
> > more consistent and discoverable state.
> >
> > [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators
> >
>
> I think using foo-qpid-messaging is good because it is good - these
> packages are just the qpid messaging API client. I think python-qpid is
> not good. It is also a qpid messaging API client, it doesn't have any
> other parts of qpid in it. I would suggest something like:
> python-pure-qpid-messaging
> python-native-qpid-messaging
> to make it clear how it differs from python-qpid-messaging.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org
>
>
Re: Fedora package renaming proposal
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
On Fri, 2014-10-31 at 11:21 -0400, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> In Fedora we have the following bindings packages:
>
> * python-qpid - pure Python bindings
> * python-qpid_messaging - Swig bindings for Python
> * perl-qpid - Swig bindings for Perl
> * rubygem-qpid_messaging - Swig bindings for Ruby
>
> Two issues were brought up with this:
>
> 1) The names are inconsistent, since Perl doesn't follow the same
> naming convention as Ruby and Python.
> 2) Fedora recommends against using an underscore in a package's name [1].
>
> This last issue doesn't come up in Debian and Ubuntu since packages
> there were never allowed to have an underscore in their name since it's
> only allowed to be the delimiter between name and version for a package.
>
> To make things more consistent, and to abide by the naming rules, I'd
> like to do the following:
>
> * rename perl-qpid to perl-qpid-messaging
> * rename rubygem-qpid_messaging to rubygem-qpid-messaging
> * rename python-qpid_messagin to python-qpid-messaging
>
> In each case the package would continue, for two releases of Fedora,
> to obsolete and provide the previous package to allow a transition
> period for any other packages. But I think this would get things to a
> more consistent and discoverable state.
>
> [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators
>
I think using foo-qpid-messaging is good because it is good - these
packages are just the qpid messaging API client. I think python-qpid is
not good. It is also a qpid messaging API client, it doesn't have any
other parts of qpid in it. I would suggest something like:
python-pure-qpid-messaging
python-native-qpid-messaging
to make it clear how it differs from python-qpid-messaging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org