Comment 16 for bug 1273484

(In reply to Andy Brist from comment #13)
> Jan,
> (In reply to Jan Wagner from comment #12)
> > This maybe one way. As the origin team swapped the name, due obvious reasons
> > and the trademark holder forked from this project, some may argue that just
> > the origin project changed his name and a new one started under the old
> > project name.
> > Under the code (and upstream maintainers) point of view monitoring-plugins
> > has the same code and developer base as nagios-plugins was until 2014-15-01.
> And this will remain the case, as the commit logs have been retained on the
> nagios-plugins repo. The question is what to do about package names moving
> forward. Until the next release from either project, the package, as it
> stands, should remain untouched. I feel there will be more confusion
> introduced by packaging the the next "monitoring-plugins" version as
> "nagios-plugins" as they no longer develop or control the nagios-plugins
> project and the next nagios-plugins release will most definitely be called
> "nagios-plugins" whereas theirs will most likely be named
> "monitoring-plugins" as their github account suggests. As the
> monitoring-plugins project changed their name and repository, their future
> packages reflect that fact.

Agreed. I do not want to keep the package name the same and change the Source0 to point to an upstream of a different name. Splitting the packages apart and maintaining them separately; if everyone agrees that is a reasonable path forward then I'll start doing the work to get that done in rawhide and for EPEL 7. We can also work on getting that done for EPEL 6 and Fedora 19/20 if people think it'd be fruitful.

> Any new releases from the nagios-plugins project could and should retain the
> name so as not to further confuse the issue. I feel the break is already
> rather public, so those who care to be aware, will be soon enough and the
> decision to change a project name does include certain consequences
> pertaining to domains, package names, and upstream conventions.


> I would like to remind those involved with this dispute, that nagios-plugins
> source was originally developed and supported by Ethan Galstad for a number
> of years before community involvement. Many of the plugins still bear his
> name and copyright. Releasing future packages not associated with Nagios
> but retaining the Nagios name would further confuse users.
> I am curious as to what the packagers think about this current situation.
> Regards.

I hope my comments above provide a reasonable route to resolving this issue. What do the two parties involved think?