On Saturday 25 October 2008, Paul Howarth wrote: > On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:53:42 +0200 > Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I really appreciate the general idea, but I don't like the term > > ".Dist" to much, as it is a bit misleading imho: some people might > > think that file might contain "informations relevant for distribution > > of the package". > > > > I thought about a alternative, but all my mind came up with was > > "distribution-specific-notes" -- that has the same problem as noted > > above, but it's imho not that worse. But that filename is quite > > long :-/ > > > > Maybe somebody else comes up with something that is shorter and more > > accurate... > > I tend to use "README.RPM" or some variant thereof (e.g. > README-SELinux.RPM). .RPM sounds a bit like it could be a rpm package whose name is README. I've usually used README.package myself. -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
