On Wednesday, 26 November 2008 at 15:34, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > Le Mer 26 novembre 2008 13:18, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski a écrit : > > > > On Wednesday, 26 November 2008 at 12:56, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > >> You can do a lot of things, but my point is > >> 1. most people won't bother and therefore > >> 2. magic packages where the rpm -> srpm relation is not obvious are > >> just introducing drag and problems in the Fedora workflows. > > > > That should not be an argument to force packagers to use convoluted > > rpm names. > > Maybe it should be otherwise, but the current situation is the one I > described, and out packaging must work with current tools, not > hypothetical better tools which may appear next month or in ten years. If people can't be bothered to look up srpm name when reporting bugs then we must either live with that or remove the need to look it up by automating this task. A half-baked solution like not allowing rpms to have different names from their srpms is simply wrong, because it unnecessarily restricts package maintainers without solving the real problem. Regards, R. -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
