upstream wants me to rename my package

Mathieu Bridon bochecha at
Sun Sep 9 09:53:36 UTC 2012

On Sunday, September 09, 2012 02:03 PM, Gary Gatling wrote:
> So a question would be do I need to jump through more hoops so that:
> " ...a user may be using the
> distribution-supplied version for day-to-day work, but they may need to
> install a pre-release to test a new fix, or to temporarily use a
> pre-release until a fix is deployed via YUM.  It would be nice for them
> to be able to do that without uninstalling the distribution-supplied
> version.  Also, the distribution-supplied version may support features
> (such as OpenSSL) that we don't build into the official binaries." ?
> So I guess another question is what is our official response?  I am
> trying to follow Ken's suggestion but anything I say just makes him
> more insistent and possibly hostile...
> My suggestion is that we name the package "virtualgl" (all lowercase)
> since thats still technically the name of the software. I think caps are
> kind of stupid in a package name anyways? I'm not sure what to say about
> "alternatives" but I'm not trying to piss them off either. :)
> Thoughts?

Fedora usually tries to stay close to upstream. That also implies 
respecting upstream's desire for their software.

If upstream doesn't want VirtualGL to be distributed in Fedora, 
following the Fedora guidelines, then perhaps the simplest solution is 
to just not distribute the package in Fedora?

I mean, if upstream is being difficult now, it is possible that the 
communication will remain frustrating in the future, rendering you 
unable to fix bugs in the Fedora package in a timely fashion, leading to 
users being disappointed by the Fedora package and moving to the 
upstream-provided packages. So why bother?


More information about the devel mailing list