-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09/12/2014 02:37 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 08:00 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >>> Ok, but on this case we have both vpnc and vpnc-script from >>> vpnc.spec. If vpnc-script becomes a separate package (with its >>> own repository), does it qualify as new package? If not (as it >>> is already there) what would be the process of creating a new >>> package repository for it? >> Yes, it qualifies as a new package and must go through the >> new-package process. > > I believe that is a glitch in the existing process and should be > addressed. An existing package in Fedora shouldn't qualify as a > new package. > It's not a glitch in the process at all. This is intended behavior. - From the perspective of the Fedora Project, we now have a piece of code that needs its own spec file and release-engineering effort. It's completely reasonable to require that someone examines the packaging to ensure that it is in keeping with Fedora's requirements. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlQS58cACgkQeiVVYja6o6Mc1wCfcFZHxCXtRju5w5MYbVQE53q2 hrQAoKDj13bdKtUXWH55uLud9hAdnG1G =imw6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
