Ben Reser wrote: > On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 04:18:09PM -0400, Charles A Edwards wrote: >> No, it is my package in as much as I uploaded the initial rpm. > > Okay for some reason I was thinking it was someone elses.. > >> I would, as well,like to know about the what is deemed to be proper >> usage of the hack prefix. > > I'm inclined to think hack* is bad because it makes it hard to find the > packages... > >> Having build access for only, as yet, a limited time I have no knowledge >> of any decisions/findings which may have been covered on the Maintainers >> list prior to my being subscribed. > > It's a recent discussion...
Well, it's a recurring one. First I remember hearing of it was in a discussion of audacity long ago. The reasoning was explained then. hackaudacity is the only package I can think off the top of my head that was proper to be prefixed hack. Yes changing to proper requires obsoletes and all, but that's life. All of the other packages that have been similarly fixed have had to deal with it too. BUT, if hackscreem hasn't actually shipped in a stable release (I don't see it in 9.1) you don't *have* to worry about it. Cooker->Cooker upgrades are not "officially" supported anyway.
