Re: Package review requests: Splitting the "sustmi" GNOME Shell extensions into separate packages
One more time: both of the newly split packages have been marked as approved on Bugzilla,
but I can't get anyone to do whatever final approval is needed for the old
"sustmi" GNOME Shell extensions to become two separate packages in Fedora. I
started this process back in October. I'd like to be done with it now :)
~ Andrew Toskin / FAS: terrycloth
> Update: I'm still working on splitting the "sustmi" GNOME Shell
extension
> subpackages into their own packages. I've opened an issue on the releng pagure
page:
>
> https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7124
>
> I've also executed `fedpkg retire ...` for the old package on EPEL7, f27, and
master.
> And the package review requests for the newly split packages have passed. The
Bugzilla
> threads are here:
>
> * HistoryManager Prefix Search --
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506428
> * WindowOverlay Icons -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506429
>
> I *think* I might be done with my part of the process, but I haven't gotten any
> feedback in a little while. Is there anything else I need to do?
>
> Thanks,
> ~ Andrew Toskin / terrycloth
>
>
> > I'm the RPM package maintainer for these two GNOME Shell extensions:
> >
> > * gnome-shell-extension-sustmi-windowoverlay-icons
> > * gnome-shell-extension-sustmi-historymanager-prefix-search
> >
> > They're both currently subpackages of the main "sustmi" package,
> because
> > upstream had been developing them in a single git repository. The two shell
> extensions
> > have nothing to do with each other, though, and upstream finally decided to
split
> them
> > into separate repositories. So I think it now makes sense to also split them
into
> separate
> > packages.
> >
> > I'm not entirely clear on the procedure. This wiki page
> >
> >
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splitt...
> >
> > talks at first about *font* packages, but otherwise seems relevant. So,
I've
> started
> > by splitting and updating the spec files, and creating these review requests. As
I
> > understand it, because the packages were already accepted into Fedora, and the
> extension
> > code hasn't changed, just the packaging, I think all a reviewer should
really
> need to
> > check is whether the upgrade path is sane and works properly.
> >
> > * HistoryManager Prefix Search --
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506428
> > * WindowOverlay Icons -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506429
> >
> > Please take a look, and let me know if I've missed anything.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > ~ Andrew / terrycloth