[ubuntu-x] RFC: Naming scheme for -nvidia

Bryce Harrington bryce at canonical.com
Tue Jun 30 05:39:18 BST 2009

Previously we switched from the awkward -legacy, etc. naming scheme for
the -nvidia driver to a more sensible one based on the final version
numbers for the frozen legacy drivers.  For consistency we decided to
name the newest driver similarly to nvidia-graphics-drivers-177.

When the 180 driver came out, we renamed the package to
nvidia-graphics-drivers-180.  Unfortunately, this caused a bit of a
hassle since all the bugs were filed against -177.  In that case, I
wrote a script to request everyone re-test against -180, explained how
to move their bug to the new package, and then later went through and
closed all the remaining bugs still left open against -177.  We also did
had to update the packaging to rename the binary packages from -177 to
-180, set up a replaces rule, etc.

I guess Nvidia will be upping the version number at least once a Ubuntu
release, perhaps more, and I'm concerned this causes more work for us
than it should.  The bug transitioning is also rather disruptive to
users, and a lot didn't follow directions quite right.  In theory the
transition would have let us drop a lot of old bugs, but in reality we
ended up with just as many bugs filed against -180, if not more, but
just without the comment history.  It felt like a lot of effort for
little benefit.

Now we've transitioned from 180 to 185.  I actually left the source
package name still as nvidia-graphics-drivers-180 this time, but I don't
really think this is a feasible solution either, as it's causing
confusion among users.

So, I'd like to propose we modify the naming scheme for nvidia drivers.
Legacy drivers would be named the same as before,
nvidia-graphics-drivers-96 and nvidia-graphics-drivers-173.  But the
active driver should be named something static, like
nvidia-graphics-drivers-new or whatever (I'm open to better names).

How do you guys feel about this approach?


More information about the Ubuntu-x mailing list