On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:38:06PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2024, 12:34 Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 12:14:14PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:50 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < > > > dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday, 13 May 2024 at 01:00, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 4:59 PM Sérgio Basto <sergio@xxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gimp3 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What the heck? This should have been gimp2 for the old version, not > > > > > gimp3 for the new version... > > > > > > > > Also, how did this pass review? > > > > > > > > License: LGPLv3+ > > > > > > > > And I'll answer myself: it hasn't or at least I can't find any review > > > > ticket. > > > > > > > > Nils, could you explain how this package ended up in Fedora? > > > > > > Standard procedure, everything seems to be in order: > > > > > > https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/62152 > > > > > > The review exception is valid because it's an alternative version of an > > > existing package, and Nils is also the maintainer of the existing > > package. > > > > It that exception automatic ? I thought it had to be explicitly > > requested from FPC ? eg in > > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Review_Process_Exemption_Procedure > > > > It says: > > > > "The FPC can grant exceptions to the normal package review process. > > This may happen, for instance, if a large number of similar packages > > are being submitted at once or if a package is being updated to a > > new major version while the old version is being kept in the > > distribution with a different name. > > .. > > Just file a ticket here, set the component to "Review Process Exception" > > and explain (with detail) why you're requesting the exemption and the > > committee will consider it in the next meeting. " > > > > So gimp3 falls under the 2nd example documented there, but still sounds > > like an FPC ticket was needed ? > > > > The wiki is outdated. All documentation from FPC has been moved to > docs.fp.o. > > The exceptions are documented here: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_package_review_process FYI, the wiki isn't the only outdated place then, see also https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_review_policy/#what "The Packaging Committee can grant exceptions to the normal package review process. This may happen, for instance, if a large number of similar packages are being submitted at once or if a package is being updated to a new major version while the old version is being kept in the distribution with a different name. The process for granting exceptions is described at Packaging Committee#Review Process Exemption Procedure." the latter being a link to the wiki page with outdated info > These cases are treated as "automatically approved" and don't need package > review nor FPC approval. Ok, does make sense to avoid "bureaucratic rubber stamping" wasting FPC time in the common case. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
