> > 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. Exactly. It would surely cause more troubles, than we can imagine at the moment. > > > 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? Good question. I know that a similar thing happened in case of util-linux. I'm personally not fully against that. But playing with names seems to me unnecessary unless the name conflicts with other projects and therefore renaming back is not absolutely necessary. > > Bill Jaromir. > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
