On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 07:06:45AM +0200, Johan Cwiklinski wrote: > I think it will be better to name the package d3lphin, which should > 'obsoletes' and 'provides' dolphin, as d3lphin is the official name, and > is officially a dolphin's fork. > Why should we keep existing dolphin as it ? It don't understand the > benefit, as its is unmaintained upstream, and it will also give the > maintainers some - in my opinion - useless work. But the KDE4 dolphin is still maintained? If we make the older package obsolete the newer one, that seems like upgrade pain later. -- Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
