On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 01:14:11AM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote: > On 09/25/2013 05:56 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote: > > For one package I maintain (qpid-cpp-server) the upstream team moved the > > location of the configuration file from /etc to /etc/qpid, where the > > other configuration files lived. > > > > I pushed the latest update and am now getting hit with negative karma > > and a BZ complaining about this change. > > > > What is SOP for when a project moves configurations? I had resisted the > > suggestion of having the spec move the configuration. Talking with other > > packagers they agreed. But simply replying to a BZ with "the file's > > moved, just copy yours over" and closing the BZ feels a bit aloof. > > > > Suggestions? > > I would leave the new qpid-cpp version to F20+ only. People can deal > with changes during distro upgrades -- they know that stuff might have > changed and can manually fix up any issues that the migration might have > caused. They are also more likely to have taken backups and other > precautions, so that if your rpm overwrites an other config file during > a distro upgrade, it's not the end of the world for them. > > Doing major configuration file reorganization in a stable Fedora > release, when people are minding their own business and not looking out > for changes, might not be appreciated by users. > > See also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Stable_Releases That's a very good point, one I hadn't considered. For future updates I'll keep major releases to n+1 only and only backport on requests. -- Darryl L. Pierce <mcpierce@xxxxxxxxx> http://mcpierce.fedorapeople.org/ "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"
Attachment:
pgpgQljN4lJLB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
