>>>>> "JvM" == Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: JvM> More details are in the review request[1], and I would appreciate JvM> your opinion on this Obsoletes header becoming a blocker. I personally think that such things should indeed not be part of the Fedora repository. FPC actually discussed something similar to this; the results of that are Use of Epochs section: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Use_of_Epochs Basically, you can carry over an epoch from a non-Fedora repository if it was "publicly accessible". I see package renames as essentially the same situation, although they certainly aren't as permanent as epochs so I can see room for considering them differently, and I'm sure we'd consider a proposal if someone wrote it up and submitted it. Finally, I really don't understand why there's a significant issue over this anyway. What would you have to do if any other package in your private repository entered the distribution under a different name? You wouldn't petition the maintainer to add an Obsoletes/Provides pair for you, you'd generate one yourself in your private repository and then transition to the Fedora package. - J< -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
