https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725292 Jorge A Gallegos <kad@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo? | --- Comment #18 from Jorge A Gallegos <kad@xxxxxxxxx> --- Yes, I pinged them about this in the same google code ticket I had opened a while ago: http://code.google.com/p/s3fs/issues/detail?id=211 about my intent to package under a different package/binary name. However I am not clear on a couple of things: (Neil is already CCed in this bug, so perhaps he can respond?) 1) the fuse-s3fs package provides the /usr/bin/s3fs binary and this review package also provides the same binary. Renaming this package's binary to /usr/bin/fuse-s3fs would only complicate matters more, i.e. fuse-s3fs.rpm provides /usr/bin/s3fs and s3fs.rpm would provide /usr/bin/fuse-s3fs. 2) not entirely sure what the behavior would be when having both packages installed and trying to use the /etc/fstab entries. As far as I can see both packages register an s3fs fuse driver... Thoughts? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review