[arch-dev-public] SDR package naming

[Eli Schwartz]

On 6/5/20 9:04 AM, Filipe Laíns via arch-dev-public wrote:
> My main concern here is that it is not as simple as it just being
> Kyle's decision, it sets a precedent. I believe the naming is
> incorrect, and as such, should be fixed. I have tried initiating a
> conversation with the maintainer but with that didn't result in
> anything.

It did result in something: he said "no".

> I really don't want to step in anyone's toes, I have postponed this
> email as much as I could. Giving the lack of the reply from Kyle, one
> can only assume he does not care that much about the issue. I am fine
> with waiting one or two weeks before taking action to make sure he has
> time to reply, if there are no objections.

"I don't agree with this, it fails to be memorable and using the
upstream shortname is confusing and does a disservice to users" sure
sounds like he objects to me.

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1601 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20200605/4c231d29/attachment.sig>