Jose' Matos wrote:
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. :-)
You can have it. I don't maintain anything that uses fftw 2.x, so I have
no interest in maintaining it.
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? :-)
This sounds like a plan.
-Quentin
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
