On 18/05/16 11:10 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2016-05-13 at 15:19 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote:
+1
The Change Page did not even try to weight pros and cons. IMHO cons (as
described above) are worse that living with original name, which is
well-known, well-documented, and relied on.
Another +1 here. I think the name should stay. Changing it brings no
significant benefits but will certainly break stuff, and render huge
amounts of existing information obsolete.
Another +1 here. There are plenty of software vendors (e.g. Google and
Adobe, to name two people might have heard of) that provide the option of
installing their software via an RPM, which installs a .repo file into
/etc/yum.repos.d. That's cool, well done software vendors, we should
applaud them, not break their stuff, or force them to provide one RPM
for Fedora and another for RHEL+CentOS etc.
The repo format comes from Yum, so yum.repos.d is fine, even if other
tools can read the same format.
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
