https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429803 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Nathan Scott from comment #2) > Hi Gil, > > Oh we were literally working on this in parallel. Wonderful news that > unit-api exists - it sadly didn't when I started :( - and upstream are > unaware of your efforts. Is really necessary for upstream? I do not see a valid reason for boring ... those "people" You should most WARNING rate to avoid to duplicate libraries e.g. repoquery -f 'mvn(javax.measure:unit-api)' or using http://java-deptools.fedorainfracloud.org/?qtype=classes&collection=f27&q=javax.measure > Sure, I will split this into multiple (closely > related) package requests. I'm traveling all this week with very little > spare time, so will need to get back to you in a little while there. > I switched to using the upstream unitsofmeasurement project prefix because > some of the package names are extremely cryptic otherwise (like "uom-se") - > *shrug* - is this a concern you share, or think its OK with the short names? Only if you do not plan or do not know this libraries could be cryptic I do not see the reason to use your "formula". But this and your law ... -- 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