On 18.12.2008 16:55, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
2008/12/18 Gianluca Sforna <gia...@gmail.com>:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Nicolas Chauvet <kwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/12/18 Gianluca Sforna <gia...@gmail.com>:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Nicolas Chauvet <kwiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/12/18 Till Maas <opensou...@till.name>:
Why do you want to use a different naming scheme than all the other mock
config files, which use this scheme:
<name>-<release>-<arch>.cfg
because the namespace is already taken.
Assuming <name> would be "rpmfusion_free" who took it?
What would be the namespace of the epel cfg files for rpmfusion then ?
Very right. what about:
rpmfusion_free
rpmfusion_free_epel
That 's a matter of choice. [...]
RPM Fusion supports EL & EPEL, but I wouldn't call those repos "RPM
Fusion Free EPEL", because that would lead to confusion with the
original EPEL. I don't think we or the original EPEL wants that. So we
should use the term EPEL only when it comes to the topic for what our
packages are build (e.g. EL & EPEL)
CU
knurd
