[Yum-devel] Time for new yum-utils release?

[Panu Matilainen]

On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 14:39 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 23:52 -0700, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, Menno Smits wrote:
> > 
> > > Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > >> On a related note - any thoughts about packaging the plugins? I think
> > >> it'd be nice to have the plugins as separate packages so they'd get
> > >> properly updated, instead of just including them as %doc. And if they're
> > >> to be packaged, should we just call them yum-<pluginname> or something
> > >> like yum-plugin-<name>? The latter would at least be very obvious what
> > >> those things are, but 'yum-protectbase' is quite clear as well.
> > >
> > > I thought the plugins in yum-utils were mainly there as examples for people 
> > > to work from. Seth didn't want to have to maintain all the crack in there as 
> > > the Yum API evolves. Given that the plugins aren't necessarily being tested 
> > > for every Yum release it might not be a good idea to start packaging them.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, if someone wants to put their hand up and maintain the 
> > > yum-utils plugins so they continue to work as Yum changes, I'm sure that'd be 
> > > welcome. I'd be all for packaging the plugins if that was the case.
> > 
> > Fair enough. So let's package selectively only those which are actively 
> > maintained instead of all of them - changelog is one such plugin, simply 
> > because I use it myself all the time.
> > 
> > Oh and like Matthew, I kinda prefer the yum-<name> approach as well, 
> > yum-plugin-<name> makes for rather long packagenames. Not that I care too 
> > much though.
> > 
> 
> check in the spec file changes to the yum-utils package then.

Done. Took the liberty of bumping the version to 0.3 as well.

	- Panu -