https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=893399
--- Comment #5 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos nmavrogi@redhat.com --- (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #3)
Shouldn't the name of this spec be pcsc-lite-asekey similar to pcsc-lite-ccid? It's a driver of pcsc-lite after all.
Guidelines recommends to stick to upstream name. Also it's driver for any PCSC service talking IFD interface.
I'm not sure about that. From the spec file this is clearly a pcsc-lite addon and the guidelines mention: "If a new package is considered an "addon" package that enhances or adds a new functionality to an existing Fedora package without being useful on its own, its name should reflect this fact."
We do the same with 'pcsc-lite-ccid', even though ccid is the upstream name. Using pcsc-ifd-asekey would also be acceptable, but I don't believe that "asekey" for a pcsc driver is right.