On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:42:04PM -0800, Eric Smith wrote: > Matt Domsch wrote: > > However, check if unifdef is really needed. The kernel team knew it > > was going to be orphaned, and said "that's OK, as the kernel tree has > > its own copy that's maintained there." or somesuch. If not, letting > > it stay dead is fine - desireable in fact. > > > What is the criteria for whether a Fedora package is "really needed" and > for which staying dead is "desirable"? I picked it up because I use it > myself; I had no idea that it had anything whatsoever to do with the > "kernel team", and I don't have any use for a "copy that's maintained > there". If you need/use it and want to maintain it, you are free to do so. If the kernel team knows a better alternative that you should consider, then the package should be retired instead of just orphaned and an explanation about why it was retired should be added to a dead.package file in the CVS devel branch. Usually the latter is not done, so you can only ask the previous maintainers. Nevertheless, having a "copy that's maintained there" sounds like bad packaging practice. Regards Till
Attachment:
pgpQuLi1dJDT9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
