[Fedora-packaging] SCL in Fedora

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 03:37:21AM -0400, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > A prefix is necessary to make the scl packages unique from non-scl packages.
> > 
> > I did mention that the downstream naming was wrong and would need to be
> > changed a long time ago.
> 
> I could find places where you mentioned that it was wrong, but I didn't find any reasoning. Could you please state why you think the downstream naming is wrong?
> 
Just replied to mmaslano -- I believe I've only mentioned it onlist because
I discussed it with mmaslano on IRC and with langdon in #scl on freenode
when doing the initial review of the draft.  Apologies for that, I assumed
from mmaslano's comments that there was an scl team that was actively
discussing a prefix (using a vendor) and that she would carry back the
rationale as to why no prefix wouldn't work.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20131101/4b8bb7fd/attachment.sig>