gnome-theme-clearlooks please Re: APPROVED: clearlooks

Dag Wieers dag at
Mon Mar 21 23:12:53 UTC 2005

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Warren Togami wrote:

> Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> > Sounds like a plan. Anyone have any complaints with the name?
> > 
> > Also, I'd like to add "Obsoletes: clearlooks <= 0.5" to both packages
> > temporarily for a couple of releases just to clean out packages that
> > people may have been using from either my repo or self-builds from CVS.
> > Any complaints?
> I would advise against it.  We need to move forward with FC and FE as the
> canonical package set.  Whoever is using the old package name must manually
> move.  This is only a small number of people right?
> Plus this cancels the benefit of renaming this package in the first place,
> because it already pollutes the namespace.

Actually I would allow for something like this for eg. 1 release cycle. 
You can't take the userbase as a objective measurement because what is a 
big userbase ?

Fact is, I have been using 'wrong' package names (to my liking) because 
I had to follow the naming scheme most likely to be adopted either by Red 
Hat or by So I had to try to be forward compatible.

For this reason, the only possibility to have an upgrade path to Fedora 
Extras, 3rd party repositories rely on Obsolete tags. It would be a wrong 
signal if only an upgrade path from to Fedora Extras is allowed, 
especially because 3rd party repositories have been the only alternative 
users had to turn to for extra packages.

Since we have a more strict naming policy in place now, new naming 
mismatches are very limited so namespace pollution will slow down.

Kind regards,
--   dag wieers,  dag at,   --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list