Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435015 --- Comment #14 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-24 22:48:45 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #10) > > Umm.. I cannot guess why you want to name binary rpm names as > > libgpp4 and libgpp4-devel. Simply gpp4 and gpp4-devel is better. > > > > I'd be happy to rename it gpp4 and gpp4-devel (as I originally packaged it), > but see comments 4-8 above - I'm a bit confused as to what is best here. Both Ralf and Jason were saying that you seemed to have some reason you want to name the binary rpm as libgpp4. However as I said on Fedora it is preferable to use tarball name for srpm/binary rpms as much as possible. And as you say you are happy with naming binary rpms as gpp4/gpp4-devel please just use these names. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review