https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433758
--- Comment #2 from Yaakov Selkowitz <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #1) > I've confirmed that there are no remaining legal issues in the liba52 > implementation. Yay! > I would strongly recommend that we take this opportunity to rename the > package from "a52dec" to "liba52". Except for the tarball name, everything > refers to liba52. (We can mitigate the "a52dec" naming scheme with Provides). There is a command-line utility as well. *If* we want to do this, I suggest instead that we leave the SRPM name alone, put the library in a liba52 subpackage, and rename a52dec-devel to liba52-devel (along with Obsoletes/Provides, of course). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
