[Fedora-packaging] Re: to fuse- prefix or not to fuse- preifx

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 19:38 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 07:19:17PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > And at least two without:
> > 
> > $ yum list ntfs-3g curlftpfs
> > [...]
> > curlftpfs.i386                           0.9-3.fc7 
> > ntfs-3g.i386                             2:1.0-1.fc7
> > [...]
> > 
> > :-(
> > 
> > Do we care about that mismatch? Should we rename the two latter in the 
> > long term just to be consistent? I tend to say "yes", so users that 
> > search like I did (yum list fuse-*) don't get taken into the wrong 
> > direction.
> > 
> > Yes, it's just a small detail, but having some package with prefix and 
> > some without is IMHO just confusing.
> 
> Some time back there was the opposite request to remove the prefix,
> supposedly even uttered by upstream.
> 
> Personally I'd prefer it to keep the prefix. Imagine fuse-ext2 w/o the
> prefix :)

I like the prefix as well.  If upstream is pushing to not have the
prefix we're between a rock and a hard place.  Upstream really has no
business deciding on rpm-package names... but making them angry at us is
the path to despair.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070328/8cd4ad53/attachment.sig>