https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725292 Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(kad@xxxxxxxxx) --- Comment #19 from Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Well, I'm Neil, and I'm the one asking the questions in comment 15, so hoping that I respond probably isn't too helpful. FWIW, I maintain the upstream project for the current s3fs thats in fedora, and unless the google code s3fs maintainers are going to be responsive, I don't intend to concede the name. I don't see any problem with renaming the binary as I noted in the comment above, If you're waiting for the project maintainers to respond, it seems like its been almost a year since they did any work on the project (which doesn't bode well for their role as maintainers). If I were you, I would simply make the changes to your review package (and teh corresponding docs changes and such), test it, and if it works, post it for me to review. If you're interested, once we get your package in, we can come up with a name that no one uses for s3fs (perhaps amzs3fs or some such), and both modify our packages to use the alternatives system to create a single binary to access it. Although that would be tricky if our option use didn't line up. and can I clear the NEEDSPONSOR? -- 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