On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:58:23 +0000 "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:01:20AM -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote: > > > > > Jon Ciesla wrote: > > >> Instead of orphaning and doing a new review, couldn't it simply > > >> be renamed, and use a versioned Obsoletes? Is it really just a > > >> new name, and > > >> otherwise drop-in compatible? > > > > > > > > > Current policy-ish stuff says that it must go through a new > > > package review, for lack of a more streamlined process yet. See > > > last week's FESCo meeting notes for gory details... > > > > My bad. So it does need the new review, but not orphaning of the > > old package? It needs a new review of the new package, and the old package needs to follow: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageEndOfLife once the new package is approved and in. Thats the current policy. > Wasn't there a new policy discussed at FPC or Fesco about this > recently? So renamed packages could just be renamed without going > through a complete review? I proposed an alternate method that would allow just checking Obsoletes/Provides on the new package before allowing it to be created. This proposal was not accepted by FESCo. So, for now at least, treat the new name as a new package. > Rich. 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
