> On 13/05/2024 00:58, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > The gimp package should be updated to 3.0, and the existing 2.x version > should move to the gimp2 compatibility package. I'm inclined to agree, not JUST because it makes sense from an update perspective, but because it's the EXACT example used in that review exception guideline everyone keeps quoting. (Emphasis added...) > 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. I feel like it's an example for a reason. Nils, you keep saying (and even wrote in the Proposed Change doc), "I don't want to have to get a Python2 exception for a new gimp2 package". But the above quote /explicitly/ says you can ask the packaging committee to bless gimp2 as a simple rename for an existing package, in which case it's not subject to the normal package review or exception requirements. This. Exact. Situation. is even used as the prototypical example of why such exceptions would be sought! -- _______________________________________________ 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
