Le mardi 27 janvier 2009 à 21:25 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit : > Le mardi 27 janvier 2009 à 19:43 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones a écrit : > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:48:45PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > * All Updates must refer to a upstream changelog or equivalent if one > > > exists. Otherwise a brief description (a couple of sentence at most) > > > justifying the need for an update must be provided by the maintainers > > > pushing the update. > > > > I'm happy this applies only to released versions of Fedora[1]. But I > > think this should also exclude 'newpackage' updates explicitly (ie. > > where a new package is added to a released version of Fedora). > > Since some people insist a simple package renaming creates a new > package, that must be audited to death, when we still have not finished > doing fedora core merge reviews, and accept to continue carry years of > legacy cruft in some historic Red Hat packages, I vigorously object to > this proposal. (if this section is not added). Though if it needs to be added, that means yet another level of complexity to manage > > Instead of requiring new levels of over-pure whiteness of new packages, > please focus on how the existing morass can be improved. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
