On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 1:34 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat.com> wrote: > > * Brian Stinson: > > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021, at 12:19, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> * Brian Stinson: > >> > >> > There is a ton of tooling that relies on the repo naming that we have > >> > right now, and maintainers are actively working against the naming > >> > conventions we have. Itmakes sense to have a convention for the very > >> > very few packages affected here, but we shouldn't apply that to the > >> > entirety of dist-git just because of infra problems with a handful of > >> > package names. > >> > >> The bulk rename would force everyone to get their tooling in order. I'm > >> pretty sure it's the only way to fix the “tree” problem everywhere. > >> Otherwise, people say “I'll deal with that manually” or “we're just > >> going to add that special case”. But in too many cases, neither > >> happens, and it just remains unfixed indefintely. And never get out of > >> a bad state. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Florian > >> > > > > "force everyone to get their tooling in order" and disrupt hundreds of > > folks doing regular development for how long? > > Gitlab has a repository aliasing mechanism. It could be a gradual > transition for existing packages. No. This is extremely excessive. We already have namespaces, and the list of reserved names is already known. Of that list, there is a single one today that actually has an RPM that overlaps. Adding content to RHEL is not a wild west process, so we can control what our SRPMs are named as they are added going forward. We are not going to rename every package to fix one, particularly when we can simply say "no" to any future conflicts. josh