> > With "not willing to compromise" I refer also to
recent controversies,
> > such as Red Hat's move from redhat-release-9 to fedora-release-1. Asking
> > for a redhat-release-10 package or changing the disttag from "rh9"
(Red
> > Hat Linux 9) to "rh9.1" (Fedora Core 1) are pretty much unfortunate
> > suggestions. "rhfc1" is a hack, too.
>
> No, it's not. I hope you will understand the issue and see that
> Fernando delivered a magnificent solution
A bit of an exageration, to say the least. It is another option...
> compatible with rpm version
> to Before Christ. Even one that I highly recommend for fedora.us.
Why "rhfc1" and not "vfc1"? Why "rh" == "Red Hat"
in the disttag
when the distribution does not have the name "Red Hat Fedora Core"
but just "Fedora Core"?
It could also be zfc1, of course. "rhfc1" seemed to me a reasonable(*)
choice that solved the problem of upgradability _I_ have. Fedora Core is
not (yet?) an independent project, it is sponsored by RedHat, so
"rh"+"fc" felt right(*).
If I understand correctly the proper alternative as defined in the
naming guidelines would be to use a "1" (right?), but I really like the
readability of a string. This [may|will] not scale in the future, of
course, depending on how future distros in the same lineage are named.
-- Fernando
(*) of course this is subjective, somebody else [may|will] think that it
is a completely absurd choice.