[arch-dev-public] SDR package naming

[Filipe Laíns]

On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 10:19 -0400, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public wrote:
> 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.

Hi Eli,

Sorry, I wasn't clear, my bad. No consensus came from my attempt at
contacting him. And there was no discussion, it was one sided, so I
feel like this issue is not resolved. There are still relevant points
that I want to see addressed.

Cheers,
Filipe Laíns
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20200605/a8749526/attachment.sig>