On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 21:44 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 21:28 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > > I'm not the maintainer of libsoup. But I own one of the broken packages > > (drivel). A cursory look -- by which I mean "asking people who I'm sure > > would know" ;-) -- tells me there's no written policy on this in the > > wiki to which maintainers should refer. If there truly isn't one, and > > people feel there should be, I humbly suggest those people should > > document the policy on the wiki in the generally accepted manner. While > > I personally believe in bending over backward to inform everyone about > > these changes well in advance, a policy is less dependent on personal > > predilections. :-) > > Dan really went out of his way to handle the api breakage as well as > possible. He had patches for all affected gnome packages before even > doing the 2.3.0 release, and he has only made the release after the > Gnome release team strongly encouraged him to get libsoup 2.4 into > Gnome 2.22. > > He has also provided a patch for libtranslate by now, and I'm sure he > will be happy to help other package maintainers that are affected > by this. That's great to hear -- just in case it was unclear, please note that I was *in no way* impugning Dan's good work. It's Rawhide, we're only just now at Alpha anyway, usw.. I only wanted to point out that if someone feels differently, there are ways to handle that -- and if it's not a policy matter, bully. BTW, I will probably try to handle my package with the limited skills at my disposal, but if I fall short of the mark, I'm glad to know Dan's available for consults. :-)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
