On 15/2/18 8:59 pm, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2018-02-15 at 10:21 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 02/15/18 10:06, Tim wrote:
On 02/13/18 20:51, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Sorry for the confusion. The repo name misled me into thinking it
was an official Fedora one.
Ed Greshko:
Understandable. IMO, they should be discouraged from using the
"fedora" name for that very reason.
I have mixed feelings about that. I see the confusion it causes, but
when dealing with other repos, you want to be able to see that you've
got the right one.
If /other/ repo sites named their "for Fedora" repos actually including
the words "for-fedora," it would alleviate both issues.
IMO, I feel the problem with using the Fedora name in a repo or site makes people
think it is formally affiliated with and endorsed by The Fedora Project. Companies
such as Disney, Apple, Samsung, and others go to great lengths to protect their
brand. Why should Fedora be any different?
I agree. I understand why the package is labelled 'fedora' since it's
meant for Fedora (and not, say Suse) but I feel it should be qualified
by the repo identifier, e.g. negativo17-fedora.
I'm using the negativo17-fedora.repo that contains definitions for all
the negativo17 repositories for fedora. As this is a text file, one
could edit the file and change the repository names to use Patrick's
suggestion if desired.
regards,
Steve
poc
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
