Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 ------- Additional Comments From faxguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-12-05 19:23 EST ------- Christoph, I understand the confusion on this review. I am truly sorry for it, and I wish that I could have somehow known ahead of time how to prevent the confusion... because I certainly would have. The mismatches between packages and specs and such has to do with the development pace and my focus on software development rather than RPM packaging, so I guess it's a chicken-and-egg kind of problem. I've uploaded the hylafax-5.0.0-1.i386.rpm file that I was using to here: http://superb-east.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/hylafax/hylafax-5.0.0-1test.i386.rpm Yes, I know the filename is different - that could not be avoided. But the file data is the same. As far as package/repository naming goes... I understand the httpd naming manner, and I completely understand why it is named that way. Certainly it may not meet the Extras criteria naming rules - neverless, it still makes sense to me and is not confusing, and in fact I probably would have followed the same naming convention in their shoes. I do not see it as an exception to common-sense - although, yes, it may be an exception according to Extras naming rules. Certainly the Extras rules can be a subset of common-sense. For other examples - not of package naming, specifically - but for naming in general... postfix and sendmail both have "sendmail" executables (among other competing executable names). Similarly, mgetty-sendfax has a "sendfax" executable that competes with an identically named executable from HylaFAX (which is why HylaFAX isn't in Core in the first place, as the RedHat 5.2/6.0 maintainers decided to favor mgetty-sendfax and do away with HylaFAX rather than implement a "switching" mechanism as they have done for sendmail/postfix). All of this makes sense to me - and indeed I can see why it would confuse some - but if one understands that, realistically, the purpose in the naming conflicts is a perfect manner of clue-sticking the user that they're looking at conflicting packages, just the same as if they were looking at two packages from the same repository but of different versions. The HylaFAX+ repository is aptly named "hylafax" because it is, after all, HylaFAX. HylaFAX+ version numbers have always been different from the version numbers at HylaFAX.org. Certainly it is not the only HylaFAX repository, but realize that the hylafax.org repository is, itself, a fork - there almost always have been different repositories (even among the earliest contributors). To say that HylaFAX+ is not HylaFAX is to say that when Alan Cox patches the Linux kernel for RedHat that it no longer is Linux. The sourceforge HylaFAX project is known as HylaFAX+ for those people that have a tough time understanding the issues that I am discussing, and certainly it makes it easier than always saying "Sourceforge HylaFAX project". That said, you really won't find anyone out there desireous to run both HylaFAX+ and HylaFAX.org for practical reasons. Realize that Darren's (Paul's) purpose here isn't really to assist the users who will be using HylaFAX (in that they may become upset to find themselves using HylaFAX+ instead of HylaFAX.org software). Rather, his purpose here is to take measures to prevent users from seeing, as I do, that HylaFAX+ is as much HylaFAX as the software found at HylaFAX.org or SGI-HylaFAX or his own commercial "HylaFAX Enterprise Edition". If he really, truly, believed what he is trying to say here then he wouldn't have named his own product with "HylaFAX". My suggestion, Christoph, would be to see the HylaFAX+ vs. HylaFAX.org thing for what it is, the usual forking arguments, and move past it so that we can get this into Extras ... whether the ultimate package name be "hylafax" or "hylafax+". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review