Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476471 --- Comment #11 from Jens Petersen <peter...@redhat.com> 2009-01-07 00:33:08 EDT --- [was writing this yesterday] (In reply to comment #8) > One problem is the package naming scheme. Publican used <brand>-<title>... > That means we can have fedora-Security_Guide but not fedora_Security_Guide. > Not sure how to go forward with this. Maybe Publican can be modified to do > <brand>_<title> instead. I don't see any problem with fedora-Security_Guide (vs fedora_Security_Guide). However the naming issue really comes down to whether we should follow the publican naming scheme verbatim in this case. IMHO it would also be ok to name this package fedora-security-guide, but I would be happy to hear opinions from other packager reviewers too, since this is a test case as the first guide in publican going into fedora AFAIK. Having said that in order to avoid having to repeat this discussion for every publican documentation and translation package review it would probably be better if publican could generate lower-cased tarballs IMHO. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Separators http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Case_Sensitivity -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedoraemail@example.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review