Thomas Vander Stichele wrote :
The upcoming 0.4.3 release of mach will finally have Fedora Core 1 building support. It will also have n/v/r parsing based on the build options (since, for example, Matthias Saou used some variables to construct the Source tags).
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one doing "flexible and sensible" stuff in the spec headers. Call that "funky" if you prefer, though :-)
There was support added to CVS by some others. I changed some things though, one of which is the basename for the distribution, which is why I'm mailing. I've changed it to fedoracore-1-i386. Compare this to (for rh9) redhat-9-i386.
I don't have any strong objections to "fedoracore-1-i386", but another suggestions would be "fedora-1-i386-core" with the others called "fedora-1-i386-extras", "fedora-1-i386-freshrpms", etc. which would all inherit core, as that is what "Core" is all about, it's the base set of packages on which all the rest must rely, so it can get pretty implicit IMHO.
Also, I had asked Matthias to symlink his RPMS.core to RPMS.os to be in line with fedora.us, though I've been told fedora.us might change themselves from RPMS.os to RPMS.core; this allows people to choose to get Fedora Core RPMS from either freshrpms or fedora.us (Since at work we have a freshrpms local mirror, I'm forced to using that one :))
Well, I went for "core" as I felt it would be more consistent with all the other bits and pieces that were to follow like "freshrpms", "extras", "alternatives". The ones I'm not really satisfied with are "updates" (as they concern only "core") and "tupdates", the testing update. This is mainly as I don't know if all other additional modules will be released sets (like "powertools" were, with updates later on) or moving targets (like most add-on repositories including freshrpms currently are, where there are no separate updates, but where the main set get constantly updated instead). I'd need to gather more information, see it discussed here or just wait'n see I guess.
Since the actual distro released is Fedora Core 1, however, and I'm assuming there might be releases of other sets (say, Fedora Freeworld 1) which might have another base, I wanted to make it explicit that this is fedoracore and not fedora.
Do you mean that when referring to "Fedora", it would be the whole addition of all available modules, including core? I guess it does make sense, as "Fedora" alone already has it's short history of confusion, and that it'll take some consistency in the chosen direction in order to change that.
I could be persuaded to change this before the release, but I want to make sure people understand why I chose this for now and that I don't intend to change it anymore after the release...
Well, probably as the n°1 annoying bug reporter for mach you've had so far, I think I'd prefer "fedora-1-i386-core", eventually with an alias of "f1c" or "fc1" instead of "fedoracore-1-i386". Seems it would make more sense for the other modules, as they wouldn't contain the irrelevant (well, ok, unuseful) "core" information in their name if they were then "fedora-1-i386-freshrpms" instead of "fedoracore-1-i386-freshrpms".
Minor issue, cosmetic nonsense, being picky... whatever :-)
Matthias