Hi, Alexander pointed out that I was suggesting a wrong name for Saxon 9 package [1]. In fact there's a couple of packages in repositories now that violate the naming policy [2] in the very same way. Apart from wondering what does Devrim think about renaming the existing saxon package, I'm wondering what do others (especially the maintainers of those other packages) think about renaming their packages? [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532664#c7 [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name The affected packages are these: antlr 2.7.7-5.fc11 antlr3 3.1.1-7.fc11 automake 1.11-2.fc11 automake17 1.7.9-12 glib 1:1.2.10-32.fc11 glib2 2.20.5-1.fc11 gtk+ 1:1.2.10-68.fc11 gtk2 2.16.6-2.fc11 gtksourceview 1:1.8.5-6.fc11 gtksourceview2 2.6.2-1.fc11 junit 3.8.2-5.4.fc11 junit4 4.5-4.1.fc11 Regards, Lubo -- Flash is the Web2.0 version of blink and animated gifs. -- Stephen Smoogen -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
