https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825557
Kalev Lember <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |[email protected] Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected] --- Comment #12 from Kalev Lember <[email protected]> --- Hi Greg, Like we talked on IRC, I'm now a sponsor and going to help you become an official packager. The spec file here looks very nice, but I have a question about the package naming, which is currently: upstream tarball: clucene-core source package: mingw-clucene binary packages: mingw32-clucene-core / mingw64-clucene-core Some of the things are called "clucene", and some "clucene-core". Wouldn't it make sense to stick with one name everywhere? I think it's a bit confusing to have different names for the source and binary packages; in the mingw packaging we've so far tried to keep them the same to keep the packaging simple and avoid confusion. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ mingw mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mingw
