> I like the idea, but it generates some doubts for me. Our kernel is > called Linux-libre which is the real name of the project and in this > case, i have a question: should we keep the $pkgname as linux-libre or > keep the same name like Arch called linux?
Keep it linux-libre. These packages are replacements only in package metadata, they already use e.g. different file names. > It opens another similar question, should we follow the real name > which we are using from the source, or the packages created from Arch? Name the browser iceweasel, don't rename calibre, sdl, etc. > Also, we are using mksource to create modified sources without nonfree > stuff to build from it (eg: calibre, clementine, sdl) [0] > Those sources aren't the same source and in this case, how should it > be called? should has it the same name or use the -libre or similar > suffix to differentiate between our modified source and official > source to let the community know which it's not the same source? Do it like Debian: keep the original package names, rename source files.
pgpoiD0ch4O3n.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
