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

Jon Ciesla limb at jcomserv.net
Tue Oct 20 16:29:58 UTC 2009

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 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!
> Ralf
> [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)
Not to bikeshed, but it's also tiny.  Since you won't be maintaining it, 
don't have to review it and don't have to install it, what's that harm 
in it's inclusion?

> -- 
> Fedora-packaging mailing list
> Fedora-packaging at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list