----- Original Message -----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 18/01/12 14:01, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> It seems actually, that there are pretty straightforward guidelines
> for renaming packages:
>
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process#Re-review_required
>
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_E...
>
> So if renaming, we will _have to_ re-review. Also, the guidelines
> are pretty clear with the Provides and Obsoletes, so it shouldn't
> really be a problem.
>
> Bohuslav.
>
OK,
if renaming is consence, we should implement it right after branching
F17 in devel-tree.
Probably one should write an example .spec, especially taking care on
sane requires, provides.
Maybe we should make a wiki page to coordinate this step (overview,
which package is required to change, which is changed, etc.
Bohuslav, would you start such a page? We could divide up reviews. I
would volunteer to do some reviews.
Matthias
So you want to actually get this into F17? I'm not sure that this is a good idea, the
time is short and only two of us have stated their opinions, so let's wait for more
people and then make the decision. If we really agree on this, then I'll be happy to
find a way to get this going (wiki page, etc.).
Bohuslav.
- --
Matthias Runge <mrunge(a)matthias-runge.de>
<mrunge(a)fedoraproject.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPFsV3AAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWdbMH/Ax4ESj6qnAnC60N+4L8I1Xk
CUKC9xTPU/S3Pmw2fgqXTs2N89W0FosSfDtX3xy8iBJ8F8QHWpNXlWl/1Lb98Kgo
qyO4IR3AANTDZAPFc7J3hNqwUnt8NiiyVrolfM4gCKRSqp/bmEEd0xKaO+pynrnq
bkwdcVEtIgE57QY9MzHcUyA06GobKyF9ICX/TLHqDwyfXCtx+qQYUmiW36xAOBTb
Qjm09T1x95XvMMCnTpYoLAmUcx/3AfzOsrl2vOzJEMFhsn97dlyVtFC5M1ZwO+7v
bnzWfQQxWmPffetjp/DN9OLNl+HbmCrltDwKsLdubDl7S6zJFbpiOu7QbtZl1CQ=
=ejbI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----