Josh Boyer schrieb: > 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. +1, but I don't really care -- but I'd prefer if responsibilities are clearly differentiated in areas. IOW: one group should handle kmods, static libs and conflicts. CU thl -- 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
