On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:30:24PM +0200, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
On 2008-08-11 14:12:34 -0700, Bernard Li wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Martin Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think its necessary (or good form) to include a full version
number in the RPM package name.
On 2008-08-11 14:12:34 -0700, Bernard Li wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Martin Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think its necessary (or good form) to include a full version
number in the RPM package name. RPM already does versioning based on
%version.
Index:
On 2008-08-12 14:41:29 +0100, Kostas Georgiou wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 07:38:15AM -0500, Martin Hicks wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:30:24PM +0200, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
this is not the package version. it is the soname mangled a bit. the
base idea behind it is, that
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 02:41:29PM +0100, Kostas Georgiou wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 07:38:15AM -0500, Martin Hicks wrote:
The common practice in the rpm world is to not to use the soname for the
latest version and have something like compat-ganglia-30 or libganglia30
for example for the
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 02:12:34PM -0700, Bernard Li wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Martin Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think its necessary (or good form) to include a full version
number in the RPM package name. RPM already does versioning based on
%version.
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:30:24PM +0200, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
this is not the package version. it is the soname mangled a bit. the
base idea behind it is, that you can install multiple version of the
same library in parallel.
Okay. I guess I just don't see this very often. Are we
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 07:38:15AM -0500, Martin Hicks wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:30:24PM +0200, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
this is not the package version. it is the soname mangled a bit. the
base idea behind it is, that you can install multiple version of the
same library in
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 02:41:29PM +0100, Kostas Georgiou wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 07:38:15AM -0500, Martin Hicks wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:30:24PM +0200, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
this is not the package version. it is the soname mangled a bit. the
base idea behind
I don't think its necessary (or good form) to include a full version
number in the RPM package name. RPM already does versioning based on
%version.
Index: monitor-core/ganglia.spec.in
===
--- monitor-core/ganglia.spec.in
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:09:42AM -0500, Martin Hicks wrote:
I don't think its necessary (or good form) to include a full version
number in the RPM package name. RPM already does versioning based on
%version.
a little hasty. This has been build tested.
Index:
Hi Martin:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Martin Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think its necessary (or good form) to include a full version
number in the RPM package name. RPM already does versioning based on
%version.
Index: monitor-core/ganglia.spec.in
Hi Martin:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Martin Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think its necessary (or good form) to include a full version
number in the RPM package name. RPM already does versioning based on
%version.
Index: monitor-core/ganglia.spec.in
Hi Martin:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Martin Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think its necessary (or good form) to include a full version
number in the RPM package name. RPM already does versioning based on
%version.
Index: monitor-core/ganglia.spec.in
Sorry for the spam, but I was one of those guys who got hit by the
GMail downtime :-)
Cheers,
Bernard
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Bernard Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Martin:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Martin Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think its necessary (or good
14 matches
Mail list logo
