On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 10:14 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 17:06 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > Just wondering (and *not* meant as a critique!): Wasn't the "unwritten > > rule" that the Packaging Committee handles theoretical packaging while > > FESCo handles practical packaging? Or did I get something wrong? > > > > *If* the Packaging Committee handles practical packaging like "Approve > > Conflicts" I'd suggest we should consider moving "Request for packages > > with static libs" and maybe "Appoval requests for kmod packages" from > > FESCo's duty's over to the Packaging Committee. > > Not quite sure. Does FESCo want to handle "practical packaging" or push > it to the FPC? Personally, I'd rather leave it to FESCo. Especially for kmods and static libs. Though I will guarantee you that for things like Conflicts, etc the Packaging Committee's opinion will be very welcome ;) josh -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
