> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:26:36 +0100, Patrice Dumas scripst: >> Because I think that being upstream and the primary maintainer of a >> package in fedora (or any distro) is not a very good idea. If there are >> conflict of interest between upstream and the distro (think about name >> space, install paths, quality), I think that having a maintainer who is >> not the primary upstream maintainer is a good thing. Having upstream >> co-maintain, or even do the packaging work is a good idea, but I think >> that upstream should not have the last saying for the package. > > Well, I would be bothered with stuff like this for some huge packages > (OOo), but I don't think (with all due respect to your utility) one > reasonable guy should IMHO be able to keep two hats on his head. And you > wouldn't be the first one (by far). I maintain two (I think) packages for which I am upstream. I suspect I wasn't the first, either. > MatÄ?j > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > -- novus ordo absurdum -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
