Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Isnt there something about dropping the compat naming scheme and
to something else? Or am I confused about a different email thread.
The guidelines were (will soon be?) updated to relax the rules, to leave
this more at the discretion of maintainers.
The first question I would ask is what are your customers wanting?
What packages need a Fast Fourier Transform and what do a majority of
customers running on EL want it to be? If the scientific community is
using lots of fftw2 versus fftw3 then that might be a good reason to
keep to older name schemes.
Mostly, all I've heard is one *very* vocal rpmforge user.
From scrounging upstream, fftw (3) clearly is the hear and now, fftw2
The second question is what is the new packaging name scheme? If the
name scheme is still compat-<package>-<major-minor> I would go with
that.. if it isnt then I would go with something like: fftw_22 fftw_3x
as the name schemes
match rpmforge: fftw (v2.x) and fftw3
Third I would go for an open and documented reasoning document from
both forge and you on why the names are different and how a user would
be able to deal with this issue.
Easier to simply match, than to diverge + document I think.
A bonus is that it's easier to change our minds later (ie, easier to migrate
fftw/fftw3 -> fftw2/fftw than the other way around).