Rename repo to rpm-rs

[dralley]

Just talking about the repository name here, not the package name. I don't really have a problem with the crate names being what they are and I don't think there's much conflict in having the repos and the crates be named very slightly differently.

• It's really annoying to have both rpm[-rs] and the original rpm cloned in the same directory
• It's too easy to confuse this repo with a fork of the latter, especially with a similar looking logo
• Continuity with the rpm-rs repo from which this came
• Google-ability
• If we were to ever start shipping binaries at some point, what would we call them? We can't use the names rpmspec or rpm or rpmbuild or rpmsign because those are existing binaries.
• We now have an rpmspec-rs repo, so whatever pattern we use ought to be continued. For the same reasons I don't think it would make sense to call that repo rpmspec because that already exists.

[dralley]

@drahnr @cmeister2 thoughts?

[cmeister2]

Personally it makes more sense to me when the repo name is the same as the crate name.

[dralley]

If we were to ever start shipping binaries at some point, what would we call them? We can't use the names rpmspec or rpm or rpmbuild or rpmsign because those are existing binaries.

[drahnr]

I don't think that should be an immediate goal, we don't want to pull in all the database logic as well. So I don't necessarily see a need to rename for that reason.

Not opposed to renaming it to rpm-rs though.