>>>>> "HdG" == Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx> writes: HdG> Well the question here IMHO is not so much how to name the HdG> package as it is which fork to package, making them parallel HdG> installable will be very hard todo and AFAIK we don't want HdG> conflicting packages. I agree that it would be very difficult to make them able to be installed at the same time, but if the hylafax authors or some other interested party decided to submit their software I don't see why we'd turn them away just because someone who forked their package decided not to change the name of the binaries. HdG> I believe that hylafax+ best fits Fedora. I don't see any point in attempting to decide which of many choices fits Fedora; hylafax+ is simply the only one that's been submitted. For comparison, Debian and Ubuntu don't seem to ship hylafax+; they ship hylafax and in addition split the package into -client, -server and -doc subpackages (which may be worth considering here). Gentoo has ebuilds for both hylafax and hylafax+ named accordingly. I'm not sure how to check Suse. Also of some importance, I think, is the fact that you can visit hylafax.org and download source and binary packages for Fedora (up to F7 at least) and they're named, you guessed it, "hylafax". I've no clue why they haven't submitted them to Fedora proper, but the folks who do (or maybe sponsor) that packaging work actually request that the hylafax+ package be named "hylafax+". http://www.hylafax.org/content/Fedora_Packages - J< -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
