<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I don't see the reason for someone to install and use two versions
of the same thing and I think that renaming the package other than
project name is a bad idea... <br>
Besides that, if the developer doesn't want that others
redistribuite his program he can always change the license or become
co-maintainer of the package in fedora repos.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Il 07/09/2012 22:54, Gary Gatling ha
scritto:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAG5Ck-5e1KD24DY1SH3Rk3jSxGCC7QYrBci6KOsm4HqPvf9sKw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Hello,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am working on a package called VirtualGL: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834127">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834127</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>After contacting the upstream on their mailing list, they
seem obsessed with being able to install their own rprms and my
package together at the same time. This seems odd / bad to me
since only one vglrun could be in the path. He keeps talking
about using symlinks in /opt and so forth to to somehow make my
package able to co-exists with his package downloadable at: </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.virtualgl.org/">http://www.virtualgl.org/</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>He does want me to change the package name also. Is it too
late for me to that after that package has been accepted into
fedora? Here is what he says about that:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>In terms of naming, I would suggest naming your RPM
something besides</div>
<div>VirtualGL. If you are splitting it into multiple RPMs,
then this is</div>
<div>easy. Just ship RPMs named "VirtualGL-common",
"VirtualGL-client",</div>
<div>"VirtualGL-utils", "VirtualGL-server", "VirtualGL-devel",
etc., and none</div>
<div>of them will actually be named "VirtualGL". Or maybe use</div>
<div>"VirtualGL-fedora" or some alternative (even lowercase
"virtualgl",</div>
<div>perhaps.)</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If a upstream project somehow objects to someone packaging
their software should you just give up and tell people that the
upstream would prefer you download their self created rpms or is
it considered acceptable to go ahead and package their software
over their objections?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>He says at the end of his email:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>"'I'm willing to help out in any way I can, within reason,
but I will also</div>
<div>re-iterate that VirtualGL was never really designed to be
integrated</div>
<div>into an O/S distribution."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for any thoughts you guys might have about this
surprising reaction...</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>