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=488100
--- Comment #27 from Philippe Makowski makowski.fedora@gmail.com 2009-03-28 07:06:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #25)
- I, personally, don't like naming scheme at all.
In fact neitheir do I ;) but see below explanations
I suspect that adding lib-prefixes and "2" as postfix for library-subpackages is redundant. Ad one more - why so many servers (classic, super and related subpackages) and related utils-subpackages? However, this may be generally accepted naming scheme among firebird-users, but in any case - please explain it.
Firebird exist in to Flavor : Classic server and SuperServer cf http://firebirdsql.org/manual/qsg2-classic-or-super.html
Firebird project build the two flavor as two packages Mandriva, Debian chose the way you see it, on meta package with subpackages.
I'm no against the idea of reworking the naming schema, but do you have some suggestion ?
I will work on others problems, thanks for the report.