Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 14:44:09 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > >>> Where packagers should really offer an explanation is when upstream >>> has a sensible release cycle, doesn't recommend jumping on VCS or betas >>> and still the packager sees a need to package non-released software. >>> >> I agree and I'm not against having a packaging should use latest stable >> not rc / beta / cvs. But that should be a Should and not a Must and such >> a rule will have exceptions and then the question becomes what is the >> procedure for such exceptions? Michael's mail tends to permission must >> be asked and down that road (which Michael has advocated before for >> other issues) lies having to ask permission to some kinda committee for >> every fart one lets and down that same road lies the hell known as >> bureaucracy! > > Refrain from putting words into my mouth. All I ask for is an explanation > in the spec file (which is something I've proposed "before for other > issues") and in the review ticket. > > If that is all you want then let me apologize, although I'm a fan of the current review process I'm also a bit allergic to unnecesarry rules. Some people here (and in my memory you are one of them but I could be wrong there) seem to want to add a new/rule procedure for each incident instead of looking at the bigger picture and only create procedures which work for the whole of the bigger picture, and then only if truely necessary. Having people explain the why of the beta in the spec sounds reasonable (for new beta/rc packages that is, adding this for all current packages is overkill). Regards, Hans -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
