|
Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > If you're on packaging@xxxxxxxxxx, we should probably take discussion > there. > > Here's the fpc ticket with the question of whether we should relax the > guidelines: > https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/15 > > Note that your description of the rubygem-passenger system could still fail > to pass the test under revised guidelines depending on what they turn out > to be. For instance, the guidelines might allow bundling of the latest > upstream version or of the version provided by Fedora, or they might > require that the package maintainer be able to code fixes should they be > necessary. It's probably a good idea to join packaging@xxxxxxxxxx and > give reasons that requirements like that aren't needed. > As per the thread on advisory-board; http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2010-October/009577.html I urge you to consider to allow exceptions like these for the greater benefit of your users -and thus upstream, through Fedora. Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip |
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
