On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 05:41:23PM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 16:22 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> These are not really fedora specific. If I was to review xtide I would
> have insisted on this file being called xtide-README.dist. For example
> it is also true for EPEL. And it is also certainly true for any
> free software distribution. So I think that this is a bug in xtide.
To me README.dist is too generic - it sounds like it's from upstream.
README.Fedora clearly tells you that the file is Fedora-specific.
But in general those files are not fedora specific.
That being said I'd have no problem with a file named something else
than README.dist or README.distribution that convey the idea that it is
added by the distributor, and not upstream. What do you propose?
Isn't EPEL also part of Fedora? I don't find anything wrong
Fedora in EPEL packages.
It is confusing at best.
Or, if README.Fedora seems illogical to you to
use in EPEL, make conditionals in the spec file so that the file is
README.Fedora in Fedora and README.EPEL in EPEL.
That's much too complicated, especially when the file is not really
fedora specific as it is the case in all the cases I have seen.
Of course, if you want to use the same package in other RPM-based
distributions than Fedora/EPEL, then the Fedora suffix is out of the
It is not really the issue here. The point is that these files are in
general not fedora specific, it is not about the intention, but about
the status of the file.