Re: [Linuxcoe-devel] feedback: systemdesigner V4 - snapshot part 2

[Bryan G. <Bry...@HP...>]

FYI,

> > Bouchard, Louis said on Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 06:10:55PM +0200:
> > 
> >>> 1. It was unclear what to download
> >>>   systemdesigner-4 ? systemdesigner-opensuse-4 ? both ?

As per the docs (see the Admin Guide), the required package is
systemdesigner, with each of the other module packages adding
more functionality.  The core systemdesigner, while it can
be installed standalone, would not provide anything visibily
useful.

> >>> sugestion:
> >>> 	call it systemdesigner-4 and  addon-4-opensuse
> >> On this issue, I'm also interested since I need to make a difference
> >> between the SystemDesigner RPM and rpms for the overlays.

I'd be open to the "addon" moniker, but would prefer to have
the systemdesigner name still appear, if nothing for the "grouping"
effect it would have on (later) packaged installs.

> >> So far, I've used this :
> >>
> >> 	- systemdesigner for the main SystemDesigner RPM
> >> 	- sysdes-overlay-{distro} for the overlays
> >>
> >> This is only a working choice for me, so I'm open to any suggestion but
> >> it is indeed an issue that needs to be adressed.
> > 
> > Maybe it's time for naming conventions ;-)
> > 
> > Looking at the repositories, I would suggest first that the version be
> > removed from the name (it's part of the version field, not the name
> > field, except for compatibility issues, but the tendency is then to
> > rename the old one, e.g. apache => apache1 and/or apache2). Also I think
> > that version should follow a more traditional numbering schema, such as
> > 4.0 for the lastest one, rather than 4 alone (as in fedora ;-)
> 
> i agree :)
> is there any reason to start with 4 ?

Actually yes re: 4 (since this project has been under development for
over 7 years, we really are at version 4).  And as for the standard
numbering schema, it was always intended to become 4.0, at least when
we offer packaged versions.  And for subsequent minor revs, 4.1, ...,
etc.

> > I'd agree with Louis that the main program package should be named
> > systemdesigner (even if being an old Unix guy I prefer shorter name such
> > as sysdes). As long as it doesn't conflict with other existing packages
> > in distro, it's fine:

Heh, I have toggled many times with the sysdes vs. systemdesigner
thinking.  As I could find no legitimate limits specified either in
rpm or deb packaging guidelines, I have currently opted for the
longer name.  And I have searched for both namespaces as widely
as I could, and found no conflict on either.

> > [root@eurolinux ~]# locate .rpm | wc -l
> > 1350237
> > [root@eurolinux ~]# locate .deb | wc -l
> > 301768
> > [root@eurolinux ~]# locate sysdes | grep rpm
> > [root@eurolinux ~]#
> > 
> > Now even if I like short names, maybe it would be interesting to avoid
> > any future ambiguity by prefixing with linuxcoe ?
> > So linuxcoe-sysdes-4.0.noarch.rpm ?

Interesting idea, as there may soon be some functionality beyond
systemdesigner, in the LinuxCOE project umbrella.

> sysdes -> SYStemDEScription ? no joke this was may first idea on this
> 
> here my 2 cents (after asking google)
> 
> sysdesign -> some companie with that name
> sysdesigner -> even software with that name (unrelated)
> systemdesigner -> even here some more
> 
> 
> for the more adventures:
> Linux-System-Designer for-> LSD4
> and the addons:
> 	4-rhel-lsd
> 	4-fedora-lsd
> 	4-suse-lsd
> 	4-....

Still, I prefer to have a common prefix for all the packages, again
to make listing the components "more coherent and recognizable".
And according to debian policy, package names must be lower case:

    http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Package

which prompted our recent migration from SystemDesigner to the current
one.

> > For other packages, as they concern distributions why not
> > linuxcoe-distrib-rhel-4.0.noarch.rpm,
> > linuxcoe-distrib-fedora-4.0.noarch.rpm, ...

Perhaps, you might be confusing what the modules are for.  They
essentially provide the data/configuration to vend a particular
distribution.  This is irregardless of what distribution you
install SystemDesigner on.  So it's not like you would grab the
fedora overlay to host it on Fedora, but rather if you wish to
vend Fedora installations.

> > I'm not sure the term overlay is obvious for everybody.
> > 
> > BTW, I'll need them very soon now ;-)

We are actively working on packages, that will cleanly install
across as many distributions as we can.  Until we are happy
with the results (and various checking tools are too), we
won't publish the packages.  However, you are free to checkout
the "packaging" module, and try to create some packages with
the current artifacts.  Feedback is more than welcome,

bryang