Hylafax review issues

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

>>>>> "HdG" == Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> writes:

HdG> hylafax is quite well known so I would expect "yum install
HdG> hylafax" to just work, but also something like rpm -q hylafax.

Well, I'd certainly agree, if this was actually the hylafax software.
But it's not; it's the hylafax+ software.  I'll freely admit that
nobody so far has tried to get the hylafax sotfware into Fedora, and
perhaps that will never happen.  If we assume that it will never
happen, then we have no conflict and I suppose we don't care.  I'm not
sure that we can make this assumption, though.

I'm trying to think of a situation where an upstream fork with a
slightly different name tries to get itself into a distro with the
original name in (what seems to me to be) an attempt to gain
legitimacy.  I don't think it's happened before, and we should avoid
hastily taking a precident-setting position.

HdG> 2) When in doubt about things like Casing or cases like this I
HdG> always look at the source tarbal name, and that in this case is
HdG> plain hylafax, not hylafax+ changing the name would mean that a
HdG> -n argument would be needed to %setup, also notice that the
HdG> installed binaries, service, etc are all called hylafax without
HdG> the +.

Well, that's just the nature of the upstream, though.  Their web site
is plain about the naming and there's a reasonable argument (already
made in the review ticket) that their tarballs are misnamed.  I think
the nature of forks will generally result in situations as we have with
the binaries.

HdG> So I'm somewhat sympathetic to the submitters arguments, have you
HdG> suggested the symlink approach to him?

I have not; I wanted to see how reasonable others thought the approach
was before proposing it, having him do the work and then getting
flamed for it in the review ticket.

 - J<