On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 19:38 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 07:19:17PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > And at least two without: > > > > $ yum list ntfs-3g curlftpfs > > [...] > > curlftpfs.i386 0.9-3.fc7 > > ntfs-3g.i386 2:1.0-1.fc7 > > [...] > > > > :-( > > > > Do we care about that mismatch? Should we rename the two latter in the > > long term just to be consistent? I tend to say "yes", so users that > > search like I did (yum list fuse-*) don't get taken into the wrong > > direction. > > > > Yes, it's just a small detail, but having some package with prefix and > > some without is IMHO just confusing. > > Some time back there was the opposite request to remove the prefix, > supposedly even uttered by upstream. > > Personally I'd prefer it to keep the prefix. Imagine fuse-ext2 w/o the > prefix :) I like the prefix as well. If upstream is pushing to not have the prefix we're between a rock and a hard place. Upstream really has no business deciding on rpm-package names... but making them angry at us is the path to despair. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
