Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481 panemade@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From panemade@xxxxxxxxx 2008-01-10 21:04 EST ------- (In reply to comment #19) > (In reply to comment #18) > > As per comment 11, I strongly recommend creating a separate package for > > docbook-xsl and making this review depend on it so as not to further delay > > this review. > > This package is dependent on this exact version of the xsl and is smaller than > many source packages currently in Fedora. > > see: > http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/source/SRPMS/ > > > It may be worth raising the naming issue on fedora-packaging list. > > I think that whole discussion is ridiculous, pointless and a complete waste of > time. I'll see if I can convince the manager in question to reconsider this push. > I don't think so. If people will start thinking and implementing their own packaging guidelines then we don't need any policies/committees to discuss any issues in fedora. Saying so I think question has been raised on fedora's work, its policies. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review