[Bug 427481] Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481


wtogami at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |wtogami at redhat.com




------- Additional Comments From wtogami at redhat.com  2008-01-10 22:53 EST -------
> If this happens everytime someone wants to push a package into Fedora,

This is a gross misrepresentation of reality.  The vast majority of package
reviews go through without the need to consult a committee for clarification or
advice.

> What would greatly disappoint, is not getting this package into Fedora 9.

Nobody is disputing this fact.  Furthermore, it would likely be easy to get it
into F8 immediately after review approval too.

Have you considered the possibility that this desired name really is problematic
for the global community namespace?  It especially feels wrong to me because it
clashes with the long established convention of *-devel for library header
packages.  We have always tried to avoid requiring any *-devel package for
non-development (usually meaning building binaries) operation.

I understand the desire to keep the name used internally for years, but is it
really such a huge burden to choose a different name?

My personal opinion: *anything* that isn't *-devel is fine.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.