[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Proposed PackageRenaming guideline



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kevin Fenzi schrieb:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RenamingPackages
>
After a first look on this proposel I have some question and comments:

1.) Is the approving process the same as if I submit a new package
request.

2.) Because the CVSAdmin request need a bugzilla ticket, why we don't
doing the relating
approving process in the same ticket.

3.) If we not need a full review process, I think anyone should
approve that the right
Provides/Requires statement existing in the new package. A lightwight
approvement
process may has the advance that the maintaining process of an
existing package will not
delayed for a long time by the renaming process.

4.) Each people which has the right to done a normal package review
should be abled
to approve a renamed package.


Best Regards:

Jochen Schmitt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAklKj48ACgkQT2AHK6txfgxCRgCcDKCAa6QRoAmNfbzUrz4Q2/r5
5VMAoJQvuJ2XYct9LqWLWAXY+/z8bbVX
=TzfD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]