On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 06:00:40 +0100 (CET) paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Paul Wouters) wrote: > On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: > > > > > Author: pwouters > > > > Added Files: > > > > xl2tpd.spec > > > > > > Humm... perhaps I am not doing too well with my bugzilla handling > > > tonight, but I don't see off hand a review of this package or a > > > approval of said review. > > > What was the bug number of the review? > > > kevin > > > > I cannot see the corresponding review request from the bugzilla > > entry related to Paul Wouters (total 13). > > > > Unfortunately he has already rebuilt this against FE-devel, > > this package should be removed from FE-devel releasing queue. > > See: > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-November/msg00542.html > > Since no one replied in over a week, I asked Tom Callaway, my sponsor, > how to proceed. He told me to go ahead with the migration. > > So today I added xl2tpd, and will request branches for FC-6 and FC-5. > Once those are build, I will mark l2tpd as a dead package. Ah... I must have missed that post on the list... You might want to look at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-581c3fb3ff1c6ef7404e8b288b59cd5280d75ad6 You only have "Obsoletes: l2tpd", which is a bad idea IMHO. You should add a Provides for just over the current l2tpd version and only Obsoletes the very last l2tpd version released. Something like: Provides: l2tpd = 0.69-0.6.20051030.fc7 Obsoletes: l2tpd <= 0.69-0.6.20051030.fc6 This way if ever someone wants to revive it or some other package with that name comes along it would be easy to get it back in (just have the new package provide a newer version of l2tpd). kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
