I believe we can sanely and easily choose naming on a case-by-case basis. We only need to follow precedent. This is not a problem.
Wouldn't the precedent be the existing rh7.3, rh8.0, rh9 tags?
No, that is not the RH precedent. That is similar to how the 3rd party repositories and fedora.us have operated.
We disagree about having ".legacy" at the end. I personally don't see a problem in having a longer filename since it *should* be handled automatically by tools. I believe we should have it for two reasons:
1) Clear separation between the official RH/FC updates and Legacy updates.
Ok, I can understand that. But instead of legacy, why not flrh7.3, flrh8.0, flrh9?
This is just as ugly as rhfc-type names. Yuck.
2) Repository tags are encouraged for all non-FC and non-FE repositories.
Yup
I suppose we could have a shorter abbreviation of legacy, but I can't think of anything that looks good.
Shorter is good, but I'm still lobbying heavily for some semblance of which RH OS the RPM was meant for in the filename.
I think I'm in agreement, but I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here.
Warren
