----- Original Message -----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 18/01/12 14:01, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> It seems actually, that there are pretty straightforward guidelines
> for renaming packages:
> 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.
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.
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.).
Matthias Runge <mrunge(a)matthias-runge.de>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----