On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 05:41:23PM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote: > 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. But in general those files are not fedora specific. That being said I'd have no problem with a file named something else than README.dist or README.distribution that convey the idea that it is added by the distributor, and not upstream. What do you propose? > Isn't EPEL also part of Fedora? I don't find anything wrong with using > Fedora in EPEL packages. It is confusing at best. > 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. That's much too complicated, especially when the file is not really fedora specific as it is the case in all the cases I have seen. > 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. It is not really the issue here. The point is that these files are in general not fedora specific, it is not about the intention, but about the status of the file. -- Pat -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
