[Fedora-packaging] Draft vote on Font Package Naming
nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Thu Jan 15 09:13:16 UTC 2009
Le Jeu 15 janvier 2009 02:33, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit :
> Jens Petersen wrote:
>> ----- "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.
> This could be taken care of by not renaming existing packages. What's
> your preference, to grandfather or not to grandfather?
I can't write font-packaging-support rpm macros that handle every
possible naming variants, sorry. All the font packages in a release
need to follow the same rules if you want spec files kept simple and
More information about the Fedora-packaging