procps-ng is a mistake (was: Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2012-05-14))
notting at redhat.com
Wed May 16 15:58:11 UTC 2012
Jaromir Capik (jcapik at redhat.com) said:
> You're partially right.
> If we talk about the Fedora's package name, then it could remain untouched.
> But since the new upstream name had to be changed and I wanted others to know
> they're installing the -ng version, I changed the name to procps-ng.
> Moreover, I initially wanted to introduce both version concurrently
> and later I decided to drop procps completely because of unclarities
> in the resolution of virtual provides.
Right, having multiple procps-style packages installed at once is way more
effort than it would ever be worth.
> Packaging guidelines also say that package names should match the upstream
> tarball or project name and the name change seemed to me as the clearest
> and best solution.
Is it intended to ever name it back if the older version dies off?
More information about the devel