[Rosegarden-devel] FW: [PlanetCCRMA] package architecture is bad

[Mark K. <mar...@at...>]

Chris, Guillaume & Rich,
   Don't worry about the comments in this email. The interesting thing was
that I guess this means that RH will be picking up RG for a future
distribution release?

   Fun! We got the ball rolling.

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: pla...@cc...
[mailto:pla...@cc...]On Behalf Of Mark Knecht
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 5:33 AM
To: NGUYEN Ngoc Can
Cc: Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano; pla...@cc...
Subject: RE: [PlanetCCRMA] package architecture is bad


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:cn...@re...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 1:33 AM
To: mar...@at...
Cc: Fernando Pablo Lopez-Lezcano; pla...@cc...
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: pla...@cc...
> [mailto:pla...@cc...]On Behalf Of Fernando Pablo
> Lopez-Lezcano
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 10:30 AM
> To: NGUYEN Ngoc Can
> Cc: pla...@cc...
> 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
> Pla...@cc...
> http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/planetccrma
>
--

NGUYEN Ngoc Can
_______________

Red Hat France



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