https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=554101 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE |--- --- Comment #33 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #32) > Therefore I guess you all want to do: > > surf -> surf-browser; > retire surf slot in pkgdb; > do nothing with the surf-geometry. Yes. > Sounds true. Wait! Why should I do this? Rationality? Just because a name > conflict? Don't you think it's futile and a kind of wasting time? Yes, we should resolve the name conflict. No, it's not futile. We are distribution maintainers and if upstreams don't make reasonable name choices, we should point it out to them and fix if they don't. > One sentence: "Hello everyone, why should I rename a package already in > Fedora for years but can't do anything after that for the existing name > created in pkgdb?" > > Chances are finite, first come first served, Jason tried to prove that "well > it's not always right". But the fact is true, you were late. FESCo ticket is > a paradox IMO again, you can't do anything to the existing "surf" after the > rename. Crux here. It's not true that you can't rename an existing package. We even had cases where approved packages were removed from distribution for various reasons. It doesn't matter that I was late to spot this package (by a couple of days, no less). You are free to run for FESCo yourself if you don't agree with their decision, but ignoring it is not right. This is part of being a package maintainer. If you don't want to do this, orphan the package and let someone else pick it up. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review