On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 10:36 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > > I think this should be explained in the QA. > > > > It is not related to package quality. > > It derives from what you see that a package of quality shouldn't have a > Packager nor a Vendor field. It seems to me the kind of helpfull rule to avoid > having to take a decision or ask on a mailing list, similar with the advice to > change Copyright to Licence. I had a look at the spec files to try to make an > opinion from the examples, however finding that a field shouldn't be present > would have required to look at all the spec files. Related to package quality or not, these things are now mentioned here: http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackagingHints. -- Marius L. JÃhndal <mariuslj at ifi.uio.no> Credo certe ne cras.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
