On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 18:38 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > > A similar situation exists currently in the CCRMA repo - the LADSPA > > plugins are not called ladspa-<plugin_name> but instead just > > <plugin_name>. That can be confusing at times. > > Hmmm, is that a real rule for Fedora packages? > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/extras/5/i386/repodata/repoview/swh-plugins-0-0.4.14-6.fc5.html No, it's not a rule. Every once in a while there are package name rule discussions (my personal "favorite" is perennial java-FOO discussion), but, AFAIK, there have never been rules for plugins, etc. When I added swh-plugins to Extras, I just used the name from CCRMA. If I were to do it from scratch, I think maybe I would have used swh-ladspa, or something like that. But I don't think it matters enough to change now. AG
