On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 10:30 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > In the case of README files there is genuine advantages to have generic > names. You have less changes to take care off when you branch off to > RHEL, EPEL or OLPC. Maybe other distributions can be encouraged to use > README.distribution too. That would be unfortunate. README.suse != README.fedora != README.ubuntu.... README.distribution is worse for Fedora users than README.Fedora because it's not telling them that they should read it to understand something specific to the package as it exists on their system. It could just as easily have come from upstream's tarball and be written for upstream's distro as by the Fedora Maintainer for the Fedora audience. The whole point of the file is to tell the user "Hey! I was written specifically for this distribution by the package maintainer to tell you anything special about this software as packaged here." How much better is README.[generic] for EPEL users and, as Jesse asks, "Do we really want to disguise the fact that these other distributions are Fedora derivatives" are the real questions. I'm leaning towards no on the latter question. As Till Maas notes in the thread you cite, we brand it as Fedora EPEL in bugzilla.... (If I wasn't leaning towards no, I'd probably point out that there are other names that are less generic than "distribution" but encompass both Fedora and RHEL. README.redhat, README.rpm, README.fedoraderivative :-) -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
