Re: procps-ng is a mistake (was: Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2012-05-14))

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jaromir Capik (jcapik@xxxxxxxxxx) said: 
> 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.

Right, having multiple procps-style packages installed at once is way more
effort than it would ever be worth.

> 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.

Is it intended to ever name it back if the older version dies off?

Bill
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux