Policy proposal for compatibility packages

[Brian Pepple]

On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 23:53 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> Anybody can already raise his concerns about a compat package, why more
> procedures and such a veto power for a particular packager?

For the reasons spelled out in the proposal: 'The reasoning for the
latter is that even if the primary maintainer is not maintaining the
compatibility package, chances are that they will have to be involved in
the maintenance due to passing along security problems, helping out with
things and redirecting misfiled bugs.'

/B 
-- 
Brian Pepple <bpepple at fedoraproject.org>

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BrianPepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B  CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080102/a9580004/attachment.sig>