[Fedora-packaging] Is "ascii" a valid package name?

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Tue Oct 20 16:03:20 UTC 2009

On 10/20/2009 05:15 PM, Martin Gieseking wrote:
> Am 19.10.2009 19:15, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
>> On 10/19/2009 06:34 PM, Martin Gieseking wrote:
>>> according to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522988#c14
>>> packages shouldn't get names that are general terms like "parser" or
>>> "smtp". If this is actually the case, "ascii" is probably an
>>> inappropriate name too.
>>> Should the package requested in
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523799
>>> therefore be prefixed or renamed even if "ascii" is the upstream name?
>>> Or is it OK as is, after all?
>> Well, Debian has this package under it's original name.
> Sorry for bothering again. I'm still not sure whether renaming of
> package "ascii" is required or just recommended. Does Ralf's remark
> about Debian indicate that Fedora could ship the package under its
> original name too?

Actually, my position is ambivalent.

On one hand it seems silly to me to force a tool's name incompatibility 
between Debian and Fedora, on the other hand, the wish to add this 
package [1] to Fedora also seems silly to me ;)

> I'm a bit confused. :)

Well, actually, I don't have much of a problem with this package's name 
-- I have a problem with this package!


[1] This package seems around since 1990, nobody seems to have missed 
since then and appears to be poorly supported by its upstream (Last 
update in 2005, despite it has no reasonable build-system/Makefiles)

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list