https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1824156 --- Comment #14 from Simone Caronni <negativo17@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Eric Sandeen from comment #12) > btw exfat-utils has now been renamed exfatprogs as of v1.0.2: > > === > This is the second release of exfatprogs since the initial version(1.0.1). > We have received various feedbacks and patches since the previous release > and applied them in this release. Thanks for feedback and patches! > > According to Goldwyn's comments, We renamed the project name from > exfat-utils to exfatprogs. However, There is an opinion that just renaming > the name is not enough. Because the binary names(mkfs.exfat, fsck.exfat) > still are same with ones in current exfat-utils RPM package. > === > > I'll probably chime in on that thread, I think keeping the binary names is > the only way to go, but a conflicts: tag in packaging might be wise? > > -Eric As you wish, but then in the end the conflict in the package is the same as the conflict in the files. I would still favour obsoleting/provides exfat-utils. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
