On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 13:44 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > except the onus of explaining what was broken was not on the packager. I don't like the word 'packager' -- it's ambiguous. If the 'package maintainer' is really only a 'package-monkey' and isn't capable of getting the problem fixed or _even_ providing a coherent explanation of why IPv6 support isn't present, why the package doesn't compile on PowerPC/x86_64, or whatever the problem is, then they really aren't someone we want to be responsible for a package in Fedora. Let them contribute, by all means, but do not let them own and be solely responsible for packages. -- dwmw2
