On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 17:09 +0200, Tim Niemueller wrote: > The allegation projects choose the name "selfishly" is besides the > point. An upstream project does not and should not have to please all or > even "only" the major distros. A careful upstream can not avoid to do so, and a careful package maintainer must do so - In case of "player", both failed. > Again, if upstream projects act careful > and have this in mind, perfect, and let us encourage them to do so. But > now renaming it in a package and thus diverting only in this distro is > not a good idea. > In the case of player the name was chosen after a Shakespeare citation > (cf. > http://playerstage.sourceforge.net/wiki/Basic_FAQ#Why_are_Player_and_Stage_.28etc.29_so_named.3F) > which is related to the functionality of the programs. So saying they > chose it selfishly as if they did it to eliminate competition or > whatever doesn't sound convincing, and they definitely didn't want to > block media players or whatever I'm sure. A matter of perspective: It's only the fact that this package so far had not been of any importance, which had let this upstream get away with their choice. They jumped into the gap, conscious, more careful upstreams had left open. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
