Re: ddrescue and dd_rescue

[Warren Togami <wtogami redhat com>]

Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 10:26 +0200, Warren Togami wrote:
>
>
> > Upstream confuses the issue with their confusing naming calling it 
> > dd_rescue in some places but ddrescue in others.  It seems to me that we 
> > should keep the existing package as-is in this case, because the package 
> > has been named ddrescue for years, and the binary is too named ddrescue.
> >
> > The guidelines exist for consistency going into the future, but it is 
> > too pedantic to force apply it to all existing packages.  Just maintain 
> > the existing ddrescue package please.
>
>
> Before doing anything further, please see the thread below, discuss, and
> decide whether both ddrescue (GNU) and dd_rescue (the current one AFAIK)
> should be shipped, or only one of them.
>
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-June/msg00782.html
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-June/msg00915.html

Argh... my analysis above was based on only what I thought was 
overzealous adherence to guidelines used as justification for renaming a 
package.  I had no idea there were TWO projects.

I no longer care at all about this package.  I don't have time to 
analyze this.  I would suggest taking Steven Pritchard's analysis and 
looking at both upstream projects.  Which seems better supported?  Then 
choose one, then make sure appropriate Obsoletes and Provides are in 
place if the package name changes.

Warren Togami
wtogami redhat com