rpm naming

David Kewley kewley@cns.caltech.edu
Tue Dec 9 16:50:59 2003


The sample.spec and package-specific spec files that I've found show the 
package name as %{module}_dkms.  The man page says the package should be 
named <package>-<version>-<rpm-version>dkms.noarch.rpm.  This brings up a few 
questions.

So far, I'm naming my NVIDIA graphics package nvgfx.  It is built around the 
NVIDIA install package for "IA32", e.g. x86.  My package therefore is *not* 
noarch, but i386.  The man page's global recommendation of noarch seems 
incorrect.

My next question is, should my package be nvgfx_dkms-1.0.4496-1.i386.rpm, or 
should it be nvgfx-1.0.4496-1dkms.i386.rpm?  The man page and existing spec 
files disagree.

And finally, if it's nvgfx_dkms, do you consider the underscore a necessary 
convention, as opposed to, say a dash, which I find much easier to type?  I 
am aware of no problem with using a dash.

The man pages and existing spec files should be brought into sync with each 
other.

One last request for advice: the NVIDIA package (as provided by NVIDIA; but 
it's not an rpm) contains both a kernel module and some X library 
replacements and additions.  I don't see a clean way, nor a compelling reason 
to split it into two packages.  But that brings up the question of the 
package name.  The final NVIDIA driver kernel module name is nvidia.o.  It 
seems like the convention is to take the module name from the object file 
name, so in this case the module is named "nvidia".

But then I build the RPM which contains both the kernel module and the X libs, 
and the X lib files have various names so perhaps "nvidia" is not an 
appropriate package name.  Another consideration: there are other NVIDIA 
products which may one day have kernel drivers (the AMD-supporting NVIDIA 
chipsets come to mind), and "nvidia" is a pretty generic name in this 
context.

That's why I chose "nvgfx" (gfx=graphics).  Do you think this makes sense as a 
package name?

Perhaps another list (e.g. RH's rpm-list or fedora-devel-list) might be more 
appropriate places to ask these latter package-naming questions, but I 
thought I'd check with you guys first to see what you thought.

Thanks!
David