tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx (Jason L Tibbitts III) writes: > ES> We came to the agreement that things like > >>> Requires: php >= 4.2 > > ES> do not make sense. > > We did? I think so: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2006-July/msg00086.html http://tkmame.retrogames.com/fedora-extras/spectemplate-pear.spec >>> Requires: php >= current PHP version > > ES> a MUST item? > > Because you haven't gone in and changed the draft. ok; updated. > Look, folks, I'm just a monkey here. I'm trying to parrot all of the > discussion into a file because nobody else seems to be bothering to do > so; if I miss something then I miss something. Don't read anything > else into it. ok; but I do not understand the drafts-flow then. IMO, drafts should reflect the state of current discussion and should be updated. It does not help when discussion on maillist is ignored and some obsolete document will be ratified. Enrico
Attachment:
pgp0UPulXlOdd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
