Axel Thimm schrieb: > On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 07:08:36AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> For those of you that are not on fedora-advisory-board find attached a >> discussion with Michael Schwendt on that list that IMHO falls in the >> area of the Packaging Committee. Could you guys please handle that? tia! > >> But I don't think there is anything to do for FESCo *before* there are >> general packaging rules in the guidelines that clarify when Conflicts >> are allowed/acceptable and when not (for both Core and Extras). > > I think this is wrong (not the contents, but the responsibilities). > > There is no real charter or manifesto of this group and there are > often topics brought up that are questionable on whether this group > should be able to decide on it. But I think the implied work is on > "how, not why/what" to package. E.g. methology vs policies. Sure, policies like "Extras does not replace packages from Core" or "Extras packages don't conflict with Core" are FESCo business. But is a Conflicts: kernel < 2.6.16 a conflict with Core or is that an acceptable way in Core and Extras to say "if you have a kernel it needs to be at least 2.6.16"? That's clearly packaging afaics. CU thl -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
