On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 06:03:58 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 19:42 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote: > > On 9/13/06, Michael Schwendt 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? It is a matter of perspective. If you encountered a package which put a hundred files directly into /usr/include, what would you think first? "Does it conflict already?" Or: "Is it really necessary to pollute the standard search path? Doesn't this increase the risk of creating a sudden conflict?" What if the files were named /usr/include/core.h, /usr/include/Core/ or /usr/lib/libcore.so.1 and did not yet conflict? I don't say this directory /usr/include/CORE is an immediate reason not to accept this package in FE for now and for the supported platforms. Nevertheless it is terribly poor naming for a directory. The library is called just "Core Library", the project "CORE". Ugh. The review process not only asks reviewers to check a list of MUST/SHOULD items. It also asks reviewers to take a look at an RPM package. If the reviewer finds pitfalls or forms of ugly packaging, it sometimes leads to a feeling like "well, sure, the packager managed to wrap the software into an RPM package or many, but I'm not fond of the spec or the binaries and hence I wouldn't feel good when approving this". This is because the review system is not bullet-proof in that it covers all possible packaging issues. It is not that if a package meets the guidelines it is "perfect" and forward-looking. > 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
