Hi,
I searched for a fuse solution for ftp/gmail today and noticed that we have four fuse files systems with fuse- prefix in Fedora:
$ yum list fuse-* [...] fuse-convmvfs.i386 0.2.3-2.fc7 fuse-encfs.i386 1.3.1-3.fc6 fuse-smb.i386 0.8.5-5.fc7 fuse-sshfs.i386 1.7-2.fc6 [...]
And at least two without:
$ yum list ntfs-3g curlftpfs [...] curlftpfs.i386 0.9-3.fc7 ntfs-3g.i386 2:1.0-1.fc7 [...]
:-(
Do we care about that mismatch? Should we rename the two latter in the long term just to be consistent? I tend to say "yes", so users that search like I did (yum list fuse-*) don't get taken into the wrong direction.
Yes, it's just a small detail, but having some package with prefix and some without is IMHO just confusing.
CU thl
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 07:19:17PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Hi,
I searched for a fuse solution for ftp/gmail today and noticed that we have four fuse files systems with fuse- prefix in Fedora:
$ yum list fuse-* [...] fuse-convmvfs.i386 0.2.3-2.fc7 fuse-encfs.i386 1.3.1-3.fc6 fuse-smb.i386 0.8.5-5.fc7 fuse-sshfs.i386 1.7-2.fc6 [...]
And at least two without:
$ yum list ntfs-3g curlftpfs [...] curlftpfs.i386 0.9-3.fc7 ntfs-3g.i386 2:1.0-1.fc7 [...]
:-(
Do we care about that mismatch? Should we rename the two latter in the long term just to be consistent? I tend to say "yes", so users that search like I did (yum list fuse-*) don't get taken into the wrong direction.
Yes, it's just a small detail, but having some package with prefix and some without is IMHO just confusing.
Some time back there was the opposite request to remove the prefix, supposedly even uttered by upstream.
Personally I'd prefer it to keep the prefix. Imagine fuse-ext2 w/o the prefix :)
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 19:38 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 07:19:17PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
And at least two without:
$ yum list ntfs-3g curlftpfs [...] curlftpfs.i386 0.9-3.fc7 ntfs-3g.i386 2:1.0-1.fc7 [...]
:-(
Do we care about that mismatch? Should we rename the two latter in the long term just to be consistent? I tend to say "yes", so users that search like I did (yum list fuse-*) don't get taken into the wrong direction.
Yes, it's just a small detail, but having some package with prefix and some without is IMHO just confusing.
Some time back there was the opposite request to remove the prefix, supposedly even uttered by upstream.
Personally I'd prefer it to keep the prefix. Imagine fuse-ext2 w/o the prefix :)
I like the prefix as well. If upstream is pushing to not have the prefix we're between a rock and a hard place. Upstream really has no business deciding on rpm-package names... but making them angry at us is the path to despair.
-Toshio
Axel Thimm schrieb:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 07:19:17PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
I searched for a fuse solution for ftp/gmail today and noticed that we have four fuse files systems with fuse- prefix in Fedora:
$ yum list fuse-* [...] fuse-convmvfs.i386 0.2.3-2.fc7 fuse-encfs.i386 1.3.1-3.fc6 fuse-smb.i386 0.8.5-5.fc7 fuse-sshfs.i386 1.7-2.fc6 [...]
And at least two without:
$ yum list ntfs-3g curlftpfs [...] curlftpfs.i386 0.9-3.fc7 ntfs-3g.i386 2:1.0-1.fc7 [...]
:-(
Do we care about that mismatch? Should we rename the two latter in the long term just to be consistent? I tend to say "yes", so users that search like I did (yum list fuse-*) don't get taken into the wrong direction.
Yes, it's just a small detail, but having some package with prefix and some without is IMHO just confusing.
Some time back there was the opposite request to remove the prefix, supposedly even uttered by upstream.
The real "just make it work" solution might be use the prefix and also provide the prefix-less name , and teach "yum list" and other utils to list the provides, too. (just a thought that came up, not sure if this really is a good idea...)
Personally I'd prefer it to keep the prefix. Imagine fuse-ext2 w/o the prefix :)
Hehe, agreed :-)
CU thl
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Axel Thimm -
Thorsten Leemhuis -
Toshio Kuratomi