On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 04:43:43AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > >On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 04:34:18AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >>Axel Thimm wrote: > >>>On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:24:41PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >>>>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.... > >>>Exactly. If the contents are equal then by definition it would not be > >>>suited for README.<distro>. > >>> > >>>Isn't EPEL Fedora anymore? Why the need to banish README.Fedora? > >>EPEL isn't targeted for Fedora. > > > >Not for, but from. > > > >>I did refer to the discussion. Think about this from the end user > >>perspective rather than from the project perspective. > > > >Yes, the end user should hopefully not wonder that EPEL is from > >Fedora. If so, then he'll hopfully get up to speed, and > >README.Fedora kicking him off to do so will have been a feature and > >not a bug. > > Seems the emphasis is incorrectly about where the repository is from > rather than where it is going to be used in. Whether it's "incorrectly" or not is up to the eye of the beholder, and FWIW README.distribution is serving neither side of the grammar. Or is this package really going to be used in a "distribution"? I'm quite sure it will be. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpFkqf50nieo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
