https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1398400 --- Comment #14 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Dave Love from comment #13) > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #10) > > Neither is prohibited. Both are just guidelines stated as "SHOULD". > > Right, which is presumably why fedora-review doesn't object. I assume the > guideline is against introducing underscores to separate name parts, not to > expurgate them. I interpret the guideline as also replacing underscores in the name with dashes. The issue is that many projects are inconsistent (for example the tarball name contains an underscore, but the web page a dash, etc.), so it's often impossible to know a priori if the package will have a dash or an underscore, and the guideline to always use dashes emerged to allow people not to guess. > The good reason is to spell the name correctly, regardless of > capitalization. If I want to search the archive for what the author calls > SuperLU_MT, I'd expect "repoquery --search superlu_mt" to find it, and it > doesn't. Likewise for DL_POLY, which I lower-cased but spelt correctly (as > a veteran of DL). Yes, that's a good point. But we already have SuperLUMT. Aside from the name: find -name \*.[oa] | xargs rm 2>/dev/null || true → find -name \*.[oa] -delete make → %make_build (to get parallelized build) > %{!?_licensedir:%global license %doc} %_licensedir is now defined pretty much everywhere, so this is probably unneeded. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx