Hide Forgot
The summary field in rh-dotnetcore10-1.0-4.el7 says: "Package that installs rh-dotnetcore10" Since rh-dotnetcore10 is also the name of the package, maybe we should come up with some better? It is even more confusing because we have rh-dotnetcore10-runtime, which says: "Package that handles rh-dotnetcore10 Software Collection"
(Adding some RHSCL folks to CC for advice) I followed the general guide for SCL packages: https://www.softwarecollections.org/en/docs/guide/#sect-Meta_Package If this is a bug, it should be fixed more systematically. It affects many other packages too. Just off the top of my head: # yum info rh-python34{,-runtime} rh-python35{,-runtime} rh-ror41{,-runtime} rh-ror42{,-runtime} rh-ruby22{,-runtime} rh-ruby23{,-runtime} | grep Summary Summary : Package that installs rh-python34 Summary : Package that handles rh-python34 Software Collection. Summary : Package that installs rh-python35 Summary : Package that handles rh-python35 Software Collection. Summary : Package that installs rh-ror41 Summary : Package that handles rh-ror41 Software Collection. Summary : Package that installs rh-ror42 Summary : Package that handles rh-ror42 Software Collection. Summary : Package that installs rh-ruby22 Summary : Package that handles rh-ruby22 Software Collection. Summary : Package that installs rh-ruby23 Summary : Package that handles rh-ruby23 Software Collection. Would something like ".NET Core 1.0 software collection" and "Runtime bits for .NET Core 1.0 software collection" help?
(In reply to Omair Majid from comment #1) > Would something like ".NET Core 1.0 software collection" and "Runtime bits > for .NET Core 1.0 software collection" help? I guess, it would. I don't have a strong opinion on the exact string, though. I was just playing with a free RHEL developer image and the subscriptions that come with it, when I noticed this.
Closing as WONTFIX, since this is pretty much how all SCL packages look by design.