On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 16:22 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > These are not really fedora specific. If I was to review xtide I would > have insisted on this file being called xtide-README.dist. For example > it is also true for EPEL. And it is also certainly true for any > free software distribution. So I think that this is a bug in xtide. To me README.dist is too generic - it sounds like it's from upstream. README.Fedora clearly tells you that the file is Fedora-specific. Isn't EPEL also part of Fedora? I don't find anything wrong with using Fedora in EPEL packages. Or, if README.Fedora seems illogical to you to use in EPEL, make conditionals in the spec file so that the file is README.Fedora in Fedora and README.EPEL in EPEL. Of course, if you want to use the same package in other RPM-based distributions than Fedora/EPEL, then the Fedora suffix is out of the question. -- Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
