> Well, it seems some people like tibbs dislike the idea with the "getting > packages built". I'm unsure myself what the proper way is to build or > not to build in devel -- normally I'd say "build", but for an issue like > this it might be acceptable to not build. Not building it allows more review from the maintaianer and is probably the right thing todo. > BTW, related question: should we commit the change not only to devel but > to the F-7 tree as well? Surely we should not build the packages > afterwards there, but if the packages get build sooner or later then the > fix will simply get it. And it avoids that people start to update a > package from the F-7 branch and copy the updated spec file to devel > afterwards and delete the change that was done in between. No real opinion, but life is often too short to get everything also pushed out for older Fedora releases. (Well, sometimes looking at the volumne of Fedora updates suggests otherwise.) > > Usually > > most package owners are ok with such "packaging changes", but there is > > no official process for this until now. > > I tend to agree with "most", but those that are not ok with such > "packaging changes" will yell loudly. So this for sure is something > where FESCo needs to come into the game. Right, this needs process at some point. Seems with growing Fedora we also slowly move from 1 person per rpm-package to bigger groups and need this working. regards, Florian La Roche -- 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
