[Fedora-packaging] Draft vote on Font Package Naming
petersen at redhat.com
Wed Jan 14 23:53:37 UTC 2009
----- "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
> The draft is available here:
Sorry but this is not a good idea IMO. It requires 119 binary font packages in rawhide to be renamed, a number of which are referenced by a number of other packages in the distro.
It also makes it hard for people to work out what the source package name is.
What is so bad about the current fonts package naming convention "name-fonts-face"?
More information about the Fedora-packaging