On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 10:25 -0400, James Laska wrote:
Greetings folks,
Some discussion took place this morning on #beaker about how to name and
group the collection of current (and planned) beaker packages. Ray
recommended bringing this discussion to a wider audience on the list.
This is related to the pending fedora package review milestone
(
https://fedorahosted.org/beaker/milestone/Package%20Review).
Bill Peck has suggested that we align the RPM packaging around the
already legally approved project name 'beaker'. The question proposed
on IRC was:
1) Do we have a single .spec and src.rpm and everything is a
sub-package?
I may be over simplifying things but I'd prefer this solution. I guess
that drawbacks are changing any sub-component would bump the package NVR
of all related packages. That could certainly be painful during pre-1.0
development, but perhaps not as much of an issue long term.
2) rhtslib (aka beaker-testlib?) would probably be it's own src.rpm. To
me this falls into the category of user contributed code? But perhaps
the testlib will be considered the standard for all beaker tests?
I wouldn't object if the lib (it will be renamed to 'beakerlib' or
'testtube', btw. - the users are voting now :) would be under beaker's
srpm - makes sense to me. I don't think it will be considered a standard
- I don't believe it's universal enough for really broad general use -
it was crafted to suit our needs. So we should really give at least the
option to use something else.
Petr