Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: documentation-devel - Documentation tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tibbs@math.uh.edu
------- Additional Comments From panemade@gmail.com 2008-01-10 21:04 EST ------- (In reply to comment #19)
(In reply to comment #18)
As per comment 11, I strongly recommend creating a separate package for docbook-xsl and making this review depend on it so as not to further delay this review.
This package is dependent on this exact version of the xsl and is smaller than many source packages currently in Fedora.
see: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/source/SRPMS/
It may be worth raising the naming issue on fedora-packaging list.
I think that whole discussion is ridiculous, pointless and a complete waste of time. I'll see if I can convince the manager in question to reconsider this push.
I don't think so. If people will start thinking and implementing their own packaging guidelines then we don't need any policies/committees to discuss any issues in fedora. Saying so I think question has been raised on fedora's work, its policies.