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 wtogami@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |wtogami@xxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From wtogami@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-10 22:53 EST ------- > If this happens everytime someone wants to push a package into Fedora, This is a gross misrepresentation of reality. The vast majority of package reviews go through without the need to consult a committee for clarification or advice. > What would greatly disappoint, is not getting this package into Fedora 9. Nobody is disputing this fact. Furthermore, it would likely be easy to get it into F8 immediately after review approval too. Have you considered the possibility that this desired name really is problematic for the global community namespace? It especially feels wrong to me because it clashes with the long established convention of *-devel for library header packages. We have always tried to avoid requiring any *-devel package for non-development (usually meaning building binaries) operation. I understand the desire to keep the name used internally for years, but is it really such a huge burden to choose a different name? My personal opinion: *anything* that isn't *-devel is fine. -- 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