On 19/05/16 15:16, John Florian wrote:
From: Jonathan Wakely [mailto:jwakely@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 15:15
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.
Yes, please don't break their goodwill. If this must be renamed, backwards compatibility is a must IMHO.
I have yet to see the arguments why this really must be renamed. Of
course, there are better names than /etc/yum.repos.d. But does the
benefits of a better name really motivate the cost of change in this
case? Really?
In other words, as Mathieu Bridon pointed out, the "Benefit to Fedora"
part of the change just isn't very convincing.
Just my 5 öre,
--alec
--alec
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
