Le Jeu 15 janvier 2009 02:33, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit : > Jens Petersen wrote: >> ----- "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> The draft is available here: >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_% >>> 282009-01-13%29 >> >> Sorry but this is not a good idea IMO. It requires 119 binary font >> packages in rawhide to be renamed, a number of which are referenced >> by a number of other packages in the distro. >> > This could be taken care of by not renaming existing packages. What's > your preference, to grandfather or not to grandfather? I can't write font-packaging-support rpm macros that handle every possible naming variants, sorry. All the font packages in a release need to follow the same rules if you want spec files kept simple and understandable. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
