Tor maintainership
Kevin Kofler
kevin.kofler at chello.at
Mon Feb 11 02:59:48 UTC 2013
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> While I understand this, I'd like to note that IMHO Fedora package
> specs should not really have any 'personal style'. If they do, it means
> they are harder for people to co-maintainer or provenpackages to step
> in and fix things in case they need to.
This is a real problem with Enrico's packages. They're all really "Enrico
packages" rather than Fedora packages as they're supposed to be. Just look
at the bizarre Release versioning (e.g. 1800) nobody else is using. (Well,
the kernel team is now using a variant of that, but the kernel has always
been a bit "special".) The correct way to handle the problem this is
intended to solve is documented right in our guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Minor_release_bumps_for_old_branches
(but even that should only be needed in exceptional cases). Putting the
systemd units for his services in a subpackage is also strange. All these
things may or may not comply with the letter of the packaging guidelines,
but they're definitely against the spirit, which is to have a consistent
Fedora style rather than an Enrico style.
And even worse, Enrico doesn't seem to know or understand the concept of
upgrade path, see the discussion on:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-14635
(His Release version hack doesn't help there because it's a new upstream
version.)
Kevin Kofler
More information about the devel
mailing list