Kevin Fenzi wrote: > While I understand this, I'd like to note that IMHO Fedora package > specs should not really have any 'personal style'. If they do, it means > they are harder for people to co-maintainer or provenpackages to step > in and fix things in case they need to. This is a real problem with Enrico's packages. They're all really "Enrico packages" rather than Fedora packages as they're supposed to be. Just look at the bizarre Release versioning (e.g. 1800) nobody else is using. (Well, the kernel team is now using a variant of that, but the kernel has always been a bit "special".) The correct way to handle the problem this is intended to solve is documented right in our guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Minor_release_bumps_for_old_branches (but even that should only be needed in exceptional cases). Putting the systemd units for his services in a subpackage is also strange. All these things may or may not comply with the letter of the packaging guidelines, but they're definitely against the spirit, which is to have a consistent Fedora style rather than an Enrico style. And even worse, Enrico doesn't seem to know or understand the concept of upgrade path, see the discussion on: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-14635 (His Release version hack doesn't help there because it's a new upstream version.) Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
