Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2008-01-09 03:26 EST ------- The upstream name is not right to begin with. I don't know about a precedent, but I myself ask upstream to change their name when it is to short or too generic (I did that for g2lib, so far they haven't acted, but I did what I could). I also made that recommendation for ht. But here it is easily done since you are also upstream. The name of the package is part of the 'quality' of the package and having a name too generic seems to be to me a good enough reason not to include it in fedora. There are no precise guidelines about what makes a package unsuitable for inclusion in fedora (except for license guidelines), but having a package that abuses the shared namespaces (package name, library name, binary in /usr/bin name) is in my opinion a reason sufficient to block a release if upstream is under the fedora umbrella. In any case please try to think at your software name from the perspective of free software community (other developers and users) and ask yourself, is my package rightly named? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review