On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 19:42 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote: > On 9/13/06, Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:43:35 +0200, Denis Leroy wrote: > > > > > But yeah, probably not worth the effort. I don't see much wrong with > > > having /usr/include/CORE around either... > > > > Except that the name is very generic and hence short-sighted. Agreed, it's very short-sighted, because "CORE" is not unlikely to conflict with "core dump files" on certain systems or with "CORE-files" an OS provides. > Isn't that an upstream issue? Do we have an actual conflict in /usr/include? Not ATM, but do we have a conflict on /usr/include/LINUX, /usr/include/LOST+FOUND, or /usr/include/NFS? No. That's the problem behind of complaints on "generality in file names", it's a matter of perspective, taste and foresight. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
