Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473583 --- Comment #7 from Debarshi Ray <debarshi.ray@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-17 13:25:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > I took a look at the debain patches and as far as I could tell, the man page > that you pointed out and the security patch mentioned above were the only ones > that I think were relevant to this Fedora package. > > Both have been included. The manual pages append "WN" to the section numbers. There is a Debian patch to fix this. It will be good to have in our package too. > Umm, although i agree that naming across distributions is a good thing, I would > say naming the package as the way the original (upstream) package, is a better > thing. Not really. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#General_Naming lays equal, if not more stress, on having consistency across distributions. > There are a couple of other reasons: > a. 'wordnet' is a common noun where as 'WordNet' refers to the actual package > from princeton ...don't believe me ? Ask WordNet :) ... That is not a problem. > b. Changing the %{name} in the spec file, implies that i'd have to change the > name of the included tarball Not at all. > I could still rename the package if you still think it is a good thing. Finally it is going to be yours and your sponsor's call, but I think "wordnet" is better. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review