Hi,
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?
Regards, Martin
Martin Gieseking wrote:
Hi,
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?
Regards, Martin
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
I vote rename. I've not looked at the review, and I've no idea what the package does. And googling it might be tricky. -J
Am Montag, den 19.10.2009, 18:34 +0200 schrieb Martin Gieseking:
Hi,
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".
The reason is outlined at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Use_of_common_namespace
Regards, Christoph
Am 19.10.2009 19:09, schrieb Christoph Wickert:
Am Montag, den 19.10.2009, 18:34 +0200 schrieb Martin Gieseking:
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".
The reason is outlined at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks#Use_of_common_namespace
Christoph, thanks for pointing out the page I was looking for. As I take it, the package should actually be renamed or prefixed.
Am 19.10.2009 19:15, schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
However, IMO, the better question would be: Why should Fedora ship it?
Are there any reasons against this tool or does Fedora already provide a similar utility? I think it could be quite handy for some people.
Regards, Martin
On 10/19/2009 06:34 PM, Martin Gieseking wrote:
Hi,
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.
However, IMO, the better question would be: Why should Fedora ship it?
Ralf
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/19/2009 06:34 PM, Martin Gieseking wrote:
Hi,
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.
However, IMO, the better question would be: Why should Fedora ship it?
Ralf
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
I think it's functions are aptly handled by Google. That said, there might be offline uses, etc. Besides, we have a whole SIG centered around packages of dubious utility. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Games
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? I'm a bit confused. :)
Regards, Martin
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)
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@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
On 10/20/2009 06:29 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
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:
[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?
The actual harm is "waste of resources".
However, my actual points behind this:
Is Fedora supposed to be a "hardly useful" packages cult which adopts any package? Provided the quality of certain packages and how certain reviews are being performed, at least I can't deny this thought.
Ralf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:57:47 +0200, you wrote:
Is Fedora supposed to be a "hardly useful" packages cult which adopts any package? Provided the quality of certain packages and how certain reviews are being performed, at least I can't deny this thought.
There was a request on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WishList
and because it's a tiny package you may not need a lot of time for maintainmence.
For the naming discussion, because Debian use the same name as upstream and Debeian has more packages as Fedora, I see no problem to use the upstream package name for it.
At least, of course I have wrote a mail to upstream fo suggest a rename of this package. But until now I haven't got any response.
Best Regards:
Jochen Schmitt
On 10/22/2009 07:15 PM, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:57:47 +0200, you wrote:
Is Fedora supposed to be a "hardly useful" packages cult which adopts any package? Provided the quality of certain packages and how certain reviews are being performed, at least I can't deny this thought.
There was a request on
OK, it's someone's pony ...
and because it's a tiny package you may not need a lot of time for maintainmence.
For the naming discussion, because Debian use the same name as upstream and Debeian has more packages as Fedora, I see no problem to use the upstream package name for it.
At least, of course I have wrote a mail to upstream fo suggest a rename of this package. But until now I haven't got any response.
Are you seriously expecting an answer?
Ralf
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org