Core Packages in Violation of the Fedora Naming Guidelines

[Jesse Keating]

On Wednesday 12 July 2006 08:02, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> They (and the users) need to track when a package was forked from JPP.
> It's a two-level upstream :
>
> 1. first upstream : source code
> 2. second upstream : initial rpm packaging at JPP, with a lot of grunt
> work in the spec files
> 3. fedora packaging : adaptations on 2.

Does that mean that when we adopt a package from SuSE we should put the suse 
release information in the dist tag too?  What about if we pick up a package 
from Axel?  Or suddenly a patent goes poof and we grab a package from Livna?  
We can certainly put credit when credit is due in the package info, or in the 
documentation, but come on, in the release field?  Why break our naming 
conventions and make babies cry when they look at the regex to try and deal 
with these awful release strings to do an autobump?

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20060712/03a967ca/attachment.sig>