On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 1:36 PM Nathanael D. Noblet <nathanael@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-09-15 at 19:26 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote: > > I've submitted a new compat-openssl11 package for review but it was > > pointed out to me that according to the new format of the naming for > > compat packages it should be named openssl1.1. However there already > > is > > a compat-openssl10 package. > > > > What is more important? Consistency between those two compat packages > > or strictly following the naming rules for the new package? > > > > My 2 cents would be consistency. If others disagree, perhaps compat- > openssl10 should be renamed to compat-openssl1.0 and obsolete the old > compat-openssl10? Its annoying to try to find the magic name something > has based on something else... python-foo vs Foo-python etc. The compat- prefix is no longer allowed. Instead we should be using versioned package names. So if we're changing the old one, it'll become openssl1.0 to comply with current guidelines. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
