On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Igor Gnatenko <ignatenko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:14:13 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: >> >>> All guidelines mandate the use of </<= Obsoletes, but unfortunately we >>> have some number of packages (179 source rpms -> 292 binary rpms) with >>> unversioned Obsoletes or with >/=/>= Obsoletes. >>> >>> It is causing problems with upgrade (if package is getting re-added) >>> or with 3rd-party repositories. Older package is obsoleting new >>> package. >> >> Good luck with trying to get some packagers to fix such issues! >> I appreciate the effort as I've reported similar things many times before, >> but some packagers just don't respond in bugzilla or overwrite changes >> applied to git after waiting months for a reply. > Isn't this is a guidelines, so if packager ignores them - he should be punished? We have no recourse for punishment. Frankly, that's not a great plan anyway. We should focus on collaboration and education, not punitive actions. I would rather focus on fixing the packages. If the primary contact can't or won't do it, then a provenpackager should be able to fix it instead. If there's a persistent issue with reverts of those kinds of changes or something, we can figure it out later. josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
