> From: "Matej Cepl" <mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:01:00 PM > Subject: Re: procps-ng is a mistake (was: Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2012-05-14)) > > On 15.5.2012 14:03, Jaromir Capik wrote: > > There is. We had to change the name, since the former upstream > > is still somehow alive, but not enough to make us happy. > > Do we? I mean if the old procps package will be killed in Fedora > (which > I think it will be, right?) then what you describe could just happen > by > changing URL in Source0, cannot it? Ahoj Matěji. You're partially right. If we talk about the Fedora's package name, then it could remain untouched. But since the new upstream name had to be changed and I wanted others to know they're installing the -ng version, I changed the name to procps-ng. Moreover, I initially wanted to introduce both version concurrently and later I decided to drop procps completely because of unclarities in the resolution of virtual provides. Packaging guidelines also say that package names should match the upstream tarball or project name and the name change seemed to me as the clearest and best solution. Jaromír. > > Matěj > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
