https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1899884 Davide Caratti <dcaratti@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #5 from Davide Caratti <dcaratti@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #4) > Everything looks fine now so I'm approving the request. Good job! thanks for reviewing! > Out of curiosity, though, is the Epoch necessary? Usually people try to > avoid it, since it complicates versioning and once you add it, you have to > keep it. I didn't really realize what the Epoch was (just copied it from a template), until I noticed that the NVR in the Changelog triggered a warning (that I fixed putting '1:' before the NVR). No, we don't need to define Epoch and I will remove it from the initial specfile if you agree. However, I'm afraid that we might introduce it in the future, in case we find out that the current uAPI can't be used seamlessly by in-tree and out-of-tree kernel implementations: an advance in "Epoch" would mean that we drop support for the OOT uAPI. (I'm also setting 'block' for FE-NEEDSPONSOR, I might need a sponsorship to perform the initial push for rawhide) thanks! -- davide Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
