Dave Jones schrieb: > On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 08:15:10AM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Tuesday 09 January 2007 02:22, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > If I would review the kernel for the extras merge I'd say "fix this". > > > But I suspect davej won't like to call the kernels 2.6.20 (e.g. > > > 2.6.20-1.2906.rc4.fc7 for example) before they are actually 2.6.20. > > > This will be one of the problem areas we'll probably have to deal with > > > when it comes to reviewing Core packages for the Extras merge. > > Personally, I'm all for giving the kernel a pass on this and some of the > > other... interesting things in the spec. That is, unless the reviewer not > > only complains about something in the spec, but also produces a viable rework > > of what the spec is trying to accomplish. The kernel is one of our speshul > > packages that really does need some special consideration. > Really. And if you want to do something useful with the kernel package, > there's no shortage of real bugs that need fixing. There are guidelines for packaging. They contain a standard for naming pre-release packages. The kernel package clearly is violating it as the version of the kernel is in fact 2.6.20-rc4, but the %version is 2.6.19. Can we agree so far? Okay, next step: Are you asking us to ignore that during the review for the merge? BTW, sure, we can't fix each and every detail of a complex package like the kernel-one. But the wrong pre-relase-version one is fixed easily and I think that actually why we do the big review for the merge. CU thl -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
