Hello, Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> skribis:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:32:46PM +0100, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: >> Sorry, I misunderstood the conclusion of the discussion: I thought that >> we would simply follow the package naming convention as per the manual. > > I am confused about this statement. The naming convention speaks a bit > vaguely of "project name chosen upstream"; very often, this means the > tarball name. Now there is www.wesnoth.org, which distributes tarballs and > executable files called wesnoth.*. So I would argue that the upstream > name is "wesnoth" and would suggest to revert this change. +1 I agree with Ricardo that prior discussion would have been necessary. I think it’s now clear that this case does not fall under the “non-controversial” category that ‘HACKING’ mentions. Thanks, Ludo’.
