Re: spring vs. spring - conflict in names

As we at JPP already do have "spring3", "spring2" and
"spring" (="spring1") package sets, and the "spring-1.2.9" is nearly
legacy, I would not mind renaming the latter to "spring1" or even all of
them to "springframework#" either, which btw sound more correct. 

Thoughts?

On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 18:23 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Miroslav Suchy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Dne 14.12.2011 16:26, Gilboa Davara napsal(a):
> >
> >> Hello Miroslav,
> >>
> >> Unless there's another option, I'd rather not rename spring.
> >> Given the fact that it's already been included into Fedora and has a
> >> number of sub-packages (springlobby, spring-maps-default,
> >> spring-installer) it'll require me to jump through a number of
> >> bureaucratic hoops and force spring uses to redownload a number of
> >> packages.
> >
> >
> > It will only require re-review of spring itself, isn't it? Those other
> > packages are not subpackages de jure. They are just package which require
> > and are required by spring.
> > So those 3 package have to be "just" rebuild. And there is no need to
> > re-review them.
> > Anyway - as Fedora packager and Fedora Sponsor, I can promise you, to help
> > you with this bureaucratic hoops and do the re-review of package for you.
> > I'm even willing to rebuild those 3 package for you if you allow me to.
> >
> > All of those packages, which require spring, are rebuilt once or twice per
> > year anyway. So I do not see the re-download as big problem.
> >
> > Miroslav Suchy
> >
> 
> Lets wait and see if the j-spring package maintainer is willing to do
> the heavy lifting. (I'm swamped as it is and going to be AFK for the
> better part of the next two weeks)
> 
> - Gilboa