On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 06:44:53PM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 09:15:50AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> All in all, I agree with Eric's original assessment of
"drupal6-flexifilter
> and the version to 1.2" as a very sane choice.
Not if the main package is called "drupal" (IMO). Because then we'd be
again at 'needing new review on update' which you're warning about
below.
So for the case of the current fedora drupal setup (with one package
called drupal and that shipping the current version) "drupal-cck-1.2"
would be the right thing to name that package (which means that we'd
need to epoch the old version out for the existing modules).
Correct.
> Traditionally in Fedora the latest package in a series has the
package name
> unadorned with the version number and backwards compat packages have the
> version number added to the name. One advantage of that is that you don't
> need a nw review whenever you want to update to a new version.
[rereviews and support periods]
I'm starting to think that it's probably best to leave things as they
are. Fedora has "drupal", EL gets drupal6.
If leaving drupal6 out of EL-5 completely is an option I'd be happy to
create a 'backport' repository with the drupal 6 packages on
repos.fedorapeople.org. If fedora insight would need to be deployed on
RHEL5 then we could put the backports into the infrastructure repo.
This is also correct. The question of pushing drupal6 packages to EL-5 is
probably a matter of whether there's a demand for druapl6 running on RHEL5
and whether anyone wants to take the time to package it.
-Toshio