Proposed PackageRenaming guideline

[Patrice Dumas]

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 01:22:59AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > I would normally agree, but I have seen a number of cases where people
> > got Obsoletes/Provides wrong and caused a mess. ;(
> > 
> > I would like to see them get another pair of eyes on their package
> > before pushing the renamed version out. Thats all.
> 
> Then maybe the guideline should be that the reviewer has to check for valid
> Obsoletes/Provides, but any other checks are optional (as in: if the
> reviewer notices something obviously wrong, he/she should report it and
> request it fixed before approving the rename, but he/she shouldn't be
> required to go through the whole checklist again)?

I think it would be right like that. A normal review is unneeded in my
opinion, and not checking obsoletes... is wrong too.

--
Pat