https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179161 --- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember <klember@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #3) > Anyway, I can yeet the complete string into the License tag. Not sure if > that helps anybody, but oh well. Yes, probably best to follow the licensing guidelines as they are right now :) On a positive side, having a super verbose license tag like this should make it easy to generate it from cargo2rpm. For what it's worth, I agree with you, but the guidelines are what they are. > > Secondly, I noticed that the gstreamer plugin binary package is called > > 'gst-plugin-reqwest'. Existing gstreamer plugins in Fedora use the > > 'gstreamer1-plugin(s)-$plugin' pattern and I think it would make sense to > > continue with this here and call the subpackage 'gstreamer1-plugin-reqwest'. > > I disagree. This is against the Naming Guidelines, and there is no > documented exception for GStreamer plugins: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/ > #_addon_packages How is it against the Naming Guidelines? The second sentence from your link says "The new package ("child") SHOULD prepend the "parent" package in its name, in the format: %{parent}-%{child}." In this case, the parent is 'gstreamer1' so it would be exactly as the Naming Guidelines say if we call it 'gstreamer1-plugin-reqwest'. If you want to make it even more clear, we could update the Naming Guidelines and add a section about gstreamer1. Might avoid confusion in the future. > I can add "Provides: gstreamer1-plugin-reqwest" to the "gst-plugin-reqwest" > subpackage to make it easier to find for users, but I would prefer to have > the name of the package match the upstream project. (There's also already > the "gst-devtools" and "gst-editing-services" packages, so it wouldn't be > the first package that follows this pattern). Yes, sadly "gst-devtools" and "gst-editing-services" got through the review process with inconsistent names :( I don't think that's a reason to follow it here though. We could maybe try to fix the naming for these two to bring them back in line with the rest. As long as the parent package is called gstreamer1 (and doesn't follow upstream naming), I really think reqwest and all other addon packages should use the same pattern. You could always add 'Provides: gst-plugin-reqwest' there if you want to make it discoverable through the upstream name :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2179161 _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
