Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/20/2009 05:15 PM, Martin Gieseking wrote:
Am 19.10.2009 19:15, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
On 10/19/2009 06:34 PM, Martin Gieseking wrote:
according to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522988#c14
packages shouldn't get names that are general terms like "parser" or
"smtp". If this is actually the case, "ascii" is probably an
inappropriate name too.
Should the package requested in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523799
therefore be prefixed or renamed even if "ascii" is the upstream name?
Or is it OK as is, after all?
Well, Debian has this package under it's original name.
Sorry for bothering again. I'm still not sure whether renaming of
package "ascii" is required or just recommended. Does Ralf's remark
about Debian indicate that Fedora could ship the package under its
original name too?
Actually, my position is ambivalent.
On one hand it seems silly to me to force a tool's name
incompatibility between Debian and Fedora, on the other hand, the wish
to add this package [1] to Fedora also seems silly to me ;)
I'm a bit confused. :)
Well, actually, I don't have much of a problem with this package's
name -- I have a problem with this package!
Ralf
[1] This package seems around since 1990, nobody seems to have missed
since then and appears to be poorly supported by its upstream (Last
update in 2005, despite it has no reasonable build-system/Makefiles)
Not to bikeshed, but it's also tiny. Since you won't be maintaining it,
don't have to review it and don't have to install it, what's that harm
in it's inclusion?
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
