Subject: Re: why apache-2.x is not apache2-2.x? (fwd)
To: Jeremy C. Reed <email@example.com>
From: Geert Hendrickx <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/19/2007 17:13:30
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 09:20:22AM -0500, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> I didn't receive any feedback so I forward here.
> Matthias is the only maintainer. Do you mind if your package is installed
> with PKGNAME of apache22-2.2.6nb1 (or my preference apache2.2-2.2.6nb1)
> instead of just apache-2.2.6nb1?
What's the benefit of having different basenames? Now they're just like
different versions of the same package, similar to php, mysql, firefox, ...
If you really want to change this, don't forget to add proper CONFLICT's as
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:30:41 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Jeremy C. Reed <email@example.com>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: why apache-2.x is not apache2-2.x?
> What is the purpose of apache2 having PKGNAME of "apache" (without 2)?
> I am working on a tool to install/update packages using the pkg_summary
> My tool can download, but when I chose to download "apache", it fetched:
> It seems to me that this should be:
> apache-1.3.37nb2.tgz (or apache1-1.3.37nb2.tgz)
> apache22-2.2.4nb6.tgz (or my preference apache2.2-2.2.4nb6.tgz)
> I know this has been discussed before.
> Can we please fix this?
> This applies to probably other packages too.