On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 00:41 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:38:21AM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > > > I have one now: README.package. > > Agreed, I also think that it is the best one. I have updated > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Packaging_Tricks#Avoiding_using_fedora_or_redhat_.28controversial.29 > > (and I have explicitely stated that it is controversial). I don't think it's controversial. You (or whoever wrote this) made it controversial. Do you really think. users finding a README.Fedora are not able to bring such a README into the appropriate context e.g. on EPEL or on RHEL? Pedantic packagers could rename such a file (as part of their rpm.specs) for EPEL or when adopting a package into RHEL. I for one, don't see much reason to do so. Ralf -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
