Modularity team,
On below definition of the modularity document, there is a problem, as Vit said.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/modularity/making-modules/naming-guidelines/#_package_branch_name
The problem is If we use X.Y.Z as a package branch name with rpms/bar,
for example the
I think the rules for module branches should be stricter. After several
back and forth in discussions with Jun about stream branches for Ruby, I
believe that the concept of "using upstream major versions as branches"
[1] is not enough and can work just for the simplest cases.
We should use
Hi Mikolaj
> I thought of using names in format "stream-${name}-${stream}" (eg.
stream-scala-2.10), but I can use "${name}-${stream}" (scala-2.10)
format too - consistency between modules is more important than
maintainer personal preferences.
I just checked current modules' situation in f29
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:38 PM Igor Gnatenko
wrote:
>
> Why?
>
> What is the problem with packages having branch "latest", "1.x" and such?
It's no problem.
Rather it might be better in the point of view of "minimal necessary
package branches for now".
I thought it again.
I considered below
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:26 PM Jun Aruga wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I like to see "package branch name" of each modules to be aligned more.
>
> Here is a list of the current module, the module stream name, the
> package branch name, another package name. There are some patterns on
> the list.
>
> #
Why?
What is the problem with packages having branch "latest", "1.x" and such?
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:35 PM Jun Aruga wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I like to see "package branch name" of each modules to be aligned more.
>
> Here is a list of the current module, the module stream name, the
> package
Hi,
I like to see "package branch name" of each modules to be aligned more.
Here is a list of the current module, the module stream name, the
package branch name, another package name. There are some patterns on
the list.
# module, the module stream name (module/foo's branch), the package
