As I have stated it in the bug report we should go with apache-commons. Alex > crossposting to java and packaging - > > Seems like we need an accepted standard for naming packages from > apache.org, particularly commons.apache.org. We already have lots of > "jakarta-commons-*" packages, but now "commons" is an ex-jakarta project > and jakarta.apache.org/commons redirects to commons.apache.org. Same > with jakarta taglibs (although that moved to tomcat). > > As of now, the only apache-* package I know of is apache-ivy, which I > would have named simply "ivy". I've got a package request in for > "commons-jexl"[1], but it has been suggested that it be named > apache-commons-jexl. If it were named that I would want a Provides: > commons-jexl much like most jakarta-commons-* packages, so it doesn't > really clean up the namespace any (just adds to it in fact). > > commons-* is a lousy name though too, be very generic. > > So, I'm fine with either (although I think it's quite possible that > "apache commons" could get renamed again), but at this juncture before a > bunch more packages come in from apache commons, I think we should make > a decision and stick with it. > > 1 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531379 > -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
