https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149430
--- Comment #12 from Kalev Lember <klember(a)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/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149430
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...