On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 21:54 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 11/24/20 9:52 PM, Benjamin Berg wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-11-24 at 21:26 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > On 11/24/20 9:10 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rename_libusb_packages_and_deprecated_old_api > > > > > > > > == Summary == > > > > > > > > Rename `libusb` to `libusb-compat` and `libusbx` to `libusb1`. > > > > Do > > > > '''not''' provide an automated update path for the old `libusb` > > > > build > > > > dependency as packages should–and likely can–be updated to use > > > > `libusb1`. > > > > > > Please, don't name packages name-compat. See the guidelines on > > > the > > > topic: > > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#multiple > > > > The upstream name of the library is "libusb-compat-0.1". So the > > "compat" part would not be distribution specific in this case. > > > > See https://github.com/libusb/libusb-compat-0.1 > > In that case, I guess it is fine, thou a bit confusing. Why not call it > libusb-compat-0.1? Really, no specific reason. :) I find it a bit weird with the version as part of the package, but it does indeed seem correct in this case. Benjamin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ 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
