https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149430
--- Comment #12 from Kalev Lember klember@redhat.com --- Oh, sorry, this is my bad, I totally forgot to address the concerns here.
(In reply to Michael Catanzaro from comment #6)
Yeah I know. It's your call, but my vote is for "syndication-domination" as it's more future-proof and easier to find the upstream project. But yes, that indeed makes it harder to find the source package from the binary package. There's no winning here. :/
Sure, let's rename it to "syndication-domination", fine with me.
I guess this somewhat addresses the other concern wrt the Python library metadata as well: If we say it's primarily a C++ library, it makes sense to use the regular, non-Python package naming and also I don't think it then needs to follow other Python conventions, such as being on PyPi and using pyproject.toml for building (the current meson build system certainly doesn't need pyproject.toml and I am not sure it makes sense to add it upstream just for keeping Fedora buildrequires if it's not used for anything else). What do you think?
This review request has taken a while (sorry, totally due to me!) and looks like other distros in the mean time have packaged up this project and have gone with "syndication-domination" source package name as well, e.g. https://packages.debian.org/source/sid/syndication-domination, https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/syndication-domination/