Hi, On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 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. [Chiming in late here, I was traveling all last week...] Agreed. Breaking compatibility should need a strong technical reason, not just trying to change an association with a package name. This will risks breaking tooling and will make it harder to eg. maintain package portability across Centos and Fedora. Let's just chalk the /etc/yum.repos.d name as a historical fact at this point, and live with it --- there's plenty in the distro that we might change if we were trying to invent a new, perfect solution, but that we keep anyway for compatibility's sake. --Stephen -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
