>>>>> "HdG" == Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx> writes: HdG> hylafax is quite well known so I would expect "yum install HdG> hylafax" to just work, but also something like rpm -q hylafax. Well, I'd certainly agree, if this was actually the hylafax software. But it's not; it's the hylafax+ software. I'll freely admit that nobody so far has tried to get the hylafax sotfware into Fedora, and perhaps that will never happen. If we assume that it will never happen, then we have no conflict and I suppose we don't care. I'm not sure that we can make this assumption, though. I'm trying to think of a situation where an upstream fork with a slightly different name tries to get itself into a distro with the original name in (what seems to me to be) an attempt to gain legitimacy. I don't think it's happened before, and we should avoid hastily taking a precident-setting position. HdG> 2) When in doubt about things like Casing or cases like this I HdG> always look at the source tarbal name, and that in this case is HdG> plain hylafax, not hylafax+ changing the name would mean that a HdG> -n argument would be needed to %setup, also notice that the HdG> installed binaries, service, etc are all called hylafax without HdG> the +. Well, that's just the nature of the upstream, though. Their web site is plain about the naming and there's a reasonable argument (already made in the review ticket) that their tarballs are misnamed. I think the nature of forks will generally result in situations as we have with the binaries. HdG> So I'm somewhat sympathetic to the submitters arguments, have you HdG> suggested the symlink approach to him? I have not; I wanted to see how reasonable others thought the approach was before proposing it, having him do the work and then getting flamed for it in the review ticket. - J< -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
