On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 22:27 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 22:19 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > > On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 21:48 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > > > > > it would mean a namespace conflict b/t people whose username is 'yum' > > > > and the package. > > > > > > > > probably best to have packagename@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > Yep. Seems like a good idea. > > > > Or <pkg>-owner/<pkg>-maintainers. Something unlikely to have > > a username collision. > > > > one hang up I realized: the owner for a package under EL5 may not > necessarily equal the owner under F9. > > should it just go to all maintainers/co-maintainers on every release? Perhaps just the rawhide owners? ~spot -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
