On Thu, 2018-02-15 at 23:19 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote: > 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. True enough. poc _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
