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

Re: Proposed PackageRenaming guideline



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

Jesse Keating schrieb:
> There was recent discussion (on IRC) that some felt a full
> re-review as "overkill" or worse "a waste of time".  I think it's
> fair to re-evaluate what we're trying to accomplish with a
> re-review and re-assess if a full review is indeed what "we" (IE
> the Fedora community, represented by FESCo) want.

Be in mind, as long as you don't rename you package, you can make any
changes on your package
without you need a review for it. Question: Why you need a full
review, if you want to rename your
package?

Of course, you can say, that you want to be sure, that you don't want
to get a naming conflict due
the renaming of the package and have the right Provides/Obsoletes
statements in the renamed
package to be sure to have a proper updating path. But this is not a
full review from my pont of
view.

Best Regards:

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

iEYEARECAAYFAklKkmoACgkQT2AHK6txfgyI0gCaAxM1kZEgKEnK0nJiRvBiZ+WD
OCoAoNtKHLC2qvgRtAF3WeuSOJmS6Y0b
=zrfw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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