Core Packages in Violation of the Fedora Naming Guidelines

[Rahul]

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