On Sunday, September 09, 2012 02:03 PM, Gary Gatling wrote:
So a question would be do I need to jump through more hoops so that: " ...a user may be using the distribution-supplied version for day-to-day work, but they may need to install a pre-release to test a new fix, or to temporarily use a pre-release until a fix is deployed via YUM. It would be nice for them to be able to do that without uninstalling the distribution-supplied version. Also, the distribution-supplied version may support features (such as OpenSSL) that we don't build into the official binaries." ? So I guess another question is what is our official response? I am trying to follow Ken's suggestion but anything I say just makes him more insistent and possibly hostile... My suggestion is that we name the package "virtualgl" (all lowercase) since thats still technically the name of the software. I think caps are kind of stupid in a package name anyways? I'm not sure what to say about "alternatives" but I'm not trying to piss them off either. :) Thoughts?
Fedora usually tries to stay close to upstream. That also implies respecting upstream's desire for their software.
If upstream doesn't want VirtualGL to be distributed in Fedora, following the Fedora guidelines, then perhaps the simplest solution is to just not distribute the package in Fedora?
I mean, if upstream is being difficult now, it is possible that the communication will remain frustrating in the future, rendering you unable to fix bugs in the Fedora package in a timely fashion, leading to users being disappointed by the Fedora package and moving to the upstream-provided packages. So why bother?
-- Mathieu -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
