> You're partially right.
> If we talk about the Fedora's package name, then it could remain
> untouched.
> But since the new upstream name had to be changed and I wanted
> others to know
> they're installing the -ng version, I changed the name to
> procps-ng.
> Moreover, I initially wanted to introduce both version concurrently
> and later I decided to drop procps completely because of
> unclarities
> in the resolution of virtual provides.
Right, having multiple procps-style packages installed at once is way
more
effort than it would ever be worth.
Exactly. It would surely cause more troubles, than we can imagine
at the moment.
> Packaging guidelines also say that package names should match the
> upstream
> tarball or project name and the name change seemed to me as the
> clearest
> and best solution.
Is it intended to ever name it back if the older version dies off?
Good question. I know that a similar thing happened in case of util-linux.
I'm personally not fully against that. But playing with names seems
to me unnecessary unless the name conflicts with other projects
and therefore renaming back is not absolutely necessary.
Bill
Jaromir.
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel