2010/7/2 Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx>: > On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 11:40:11AM +0200, Matěj Cepl wrote: >> Dne 2.7.2010 11:34, Michael Schwendt napsal(a): >> > Of course there is. There ought to be prior communication about such plans >> > to upgrade a package. The primary package maintainer may have good reasons >> > for not upgrading the package. Just ask! >> >> The primary package maintainer (see the other thread about "owning" a >> package) who has a package 8 months in FTBFS doesn't have much rights in >> my thinking. > > I think that this is very wrong. I don't know the specifics of this package > either, but I remember that for one of my packages, I had to hold of > correcting a FTBS because it meant upgrading, and I coudn't do that > because of some incompatibilities. > > Bottom line is -- unless it changed -- in the spirit of provenpackager > policies for non urgent things like FTBS, provenpackagers should do > as little as possible, contact packagers before doing anything, do change > in cvs but let time for the packager to build or revert. > > -- > Pat > -- However, FTBFS in rawhide is not allowed, your package will be orphaned/cleaned if it has a FTBFS bug for two release cycles. Chen Lei -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
