On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 10:25 -0400, James Laska wrote:
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
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
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.