On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 18:55 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 11:37 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-07-05 at 09:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > > > Ralf's change makes sense as well. spot, if you're working on adding > > > compat-* guidelines, do you want to work this in or should I add it to > > > next week's agenda separately? (There's a review pending on this change > > > so I want to keep the first part moving forward.) > > > > No, go ahead. I don't know when I will get to the compat guidelines. > The question to discuss would be: Under which circumstance are they > applicable and when should the <package>N approach be preferred. > > I am inclined to think the <package>N approach to be more versatile and > generally applicable (esp. cases of "fully parallel installable > packages"), while the compat-* approach is aiming at providing "backward > compatible run-time packages" (in particular lib-packages). Yes, I feel the same way. Feel free to draft up text if you are unwilling to wait for me to get around to it. :) ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
