-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, So taking into consideration all the feed back , here are the changes done: - - bump soname in the code from 1.2.11 to 1.2.12 - - In the srpm, libtar-ng now obsoletes libtar, so that the conflicts are resolved. - - Tar ball is bz2 and not gzip to save space. - - The autom4te.cache dir is now removed. - - License changes from MIT to BSD as per the original suggestion of the author. - - Removed README.new from the tar and updated README with new code details, Also updated COPYRIGHT, while retaining the original clauses. SPEC: http://huzaifas.fedorapeople.org/spec/libtar-ng.spec SRPM: http://huzaifas.fedorapeople.org/srpms/libtar-ng-1.2.12-1.fc12.src.rpm Any more comments/suggestions would be welcome. Kevin Kofler wrote: > Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote: >> I have forked libtar as libtar-ng, because the upstream does not have >> time to maintain it anymore. >> >> Here is the bz: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=546169 >> >> Now the question is what is a private fork? >> Am i wrong in forking it and packaging in fedora? > > IMHO, this should be packaged, and in a way to Obsoletes/Provides: libtar as > it's backwards-compatible and actually actively maintained unlike libtar. > The Obsoletes/Provides should of course be versioned, so if a new libtar > springs up at a later point (i.e. if the maintainer really goes back to > actively developing it), it can be introduced instead of or in addition to > the fork. > > Kevin Kofler > - -- Regards, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala, RHCE, CCNA (IRC: huzaifas) GnuPG Fingerprint: 3A0F DAFB 9279 02ED 273B FFE9 CC70 DCF2 DA5B DAE5 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Red Hat - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iD8DBQFLJfeNzHDc8tpb2uURAmAPAJ95Bi1pavbb9YmT6vfksjHzgf59rgCfXm75 E+X/Aa6LF+RwXiq7ExupLUQ= =oSV4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
