On Monday 30 January 2006 20:59, Quentin Spencer wrote: > OK, sorry about the delay in responding. The new 3.1 release of fftw is > out now, and I have checked the necessary changes for the fftw3 package > into CVS, but I'm going to wait on requesting a build until we reach a > final decision on this change. So, here's my proposal: we change both > FC-4 and FC-5 branches, you take over the 2.x branch under whatever name > you want (I assume you'll call it fftw2, but it also occured to me that > we could call it compat-fftw2 or something like that--you're the > maintainer so you can decide). I will choose fftw2 since in a sense it is a different library. Also usually we don't have devel packages for compat packages, this is a requirement now, so.. > I will take over fftw and update it to > the new 3.1 release, and the fftw3 name will be abandoned. If you agree > with this, go ahead and create the 2.x package and notify me when it's > done. I will make the necessary changes to fftw and I will notify the > maintainers of packages that depend on fftw3 (mostly me). The fftw and > fftw3 spec files are mostly the same, but the fftw3 spec has a few > details that could be helpful in creating a package whose name differs > from the upstream name. The other option is for you to take control of fftw version 2, I will not object. :-) Notice that I am not refusing the maintenance of fftw. :-) So whatever is the path taken we should proceed. :-) If you decline the maintenance of version 2 as soon as you answer I will change the ownership of fftw, now rename fftw2, to me. I will import the last srpm to extras and I will require the creation of branch FC4 and the removal of fftw3 from development and FC4. Does this sounds like a plan? :-) > -Quentin -- José Abílio -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
