procps-ng is a mistake (was: Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2012-05-14))

Jaromir Capik jcapik at
Wed May 16 17:15:37 UTC 2012

> > 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.

Exactly. It would surely cause more troubles, than we can imagine
at the moment.

> > 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?

Good question. I know that a similar thing happened in case of util-linux.
I'm personally not fully against that. But playing with names seems
to me unnecessary unless the name conflicts with other projects
and therefore renaming back is not absolutely necessary.

> Bill


> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at

More information about the devel mailing list