[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Core Packages in Violation of the Fedora Naming Guidelines



Fernando Nasser wrote:
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
I think it's been used long enough on a packageset big enough to show
this is not the case

And this sounds like an extemporaneous nitypicking for me. I was not yet given a technical reason for changing, just someone's subjective sense of esthetics.

It is a huge change, on a huge number of packages, involving an upstream community that does this work for years, on something that has been done successifuly for two generations of Fedora Core (FC3 and FC4) plus several releases on RHEL (not to mention Suse Mandriva et al.) and the changes proposed have serious practical implications as already noted on this thread (and note also that the people now requesting a change have been dealing with this same release naming for all this time.)

And for what? What are the technical advantages that will be obtained with this change? If we knew what effect wants to be obtained we could perhaps think together in a better way to solve it.

I strongly suggest that we spend our time producing something that can improve the experience for Fedora 6 users. Like an updated AOT compiled Java stack with Open Source AppServers on it. What about better video drivers? I had to give up on my dual-head video card when upgrading to Fedora 5 (a real regression)?

Have a bug report on that? Arguing that we shouldnt talk about packaging issues just because we have a video driver regression is like claiming that people should fix kernel bugs instead of drawing new icons. It ignores the fact that multiple people with different skill sets are working on these issues and spending time on one doesnt take away the time spend on another.

Rahul


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]