On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 01:26:59 +0100 Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 01:22:59AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > I would normally agree, but I have seen a number of cases where > > > people got Obsoletes/Provides wrong and caused a mess. ;( > > > > > > I would like to see them get another pair of eyes on their package > > > before pushing the renamed version out. Thats all. > > > > Then maybe the guideline should be that the reviewer has to check > > for valid Obsoletes/Provides, but any other checks are optional (as > > in: if the reviewer notices something obviously wrong, he/she > > should report it and request it fixed before approving the rename, > > but he/she shouldn't be required to go through the whole checklist > > again)? > > I think it would be right like that. A normal review is unneeded in my > opinion, and not checking obsoletes... is wrong too. Yes, that was my intent... just checking the Obsoletes/Provides against the renaming part of the naming guidelines. Of course if they notice something else that could be improved, they could mention it, but it shouldn't block the rename unless it's something very serious. > Pat kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
