Re: Help wanted with dist-cvs to git conversion

2009-12-11 Thread Lubomir Rintel
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 11:05 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> 2009/12/11 Jesse Keating :
> > For the initial testing, just giving every user a @feodraproject.org
> > domain would be sufficient, however we should have a discussion about
> > whether to use this email address or to use the user's real email
> > address.
> 
> Definitely @fedoraproject.org email addresses. A lot of us use them
> even in Bugzilla, all my packages have the fp.o address in %changelog.
> I dont want to fiddle around when i change my "real" email address.
> Just pop in to FAS and change it there, done.

A big -1 for this. Your "A lot" is in fact "a tiny fraction" and for
some of us an e-mail address is important mean for identifying an user
("Oh, this is John Doe of Canonical", ...).

It would be awesome if names in GIT log would correspond to what an user
uses in the package's change log (maybe falling back to @fp.o if there's
no changelog entry for him). Some of us (well, maybe just me) use e-mail
addresses to separate packages maintained in private time to job-related
packages and it would be awesome if it could be preserved in the GIT
log.

Would this be possible? (If noone would volunteer to write a script that
would generate the database, I'd do. This would need a slightly
different format of the information, since package information should be
added though).

-- 
Flash is the Web2.0 version of blink and animated gifs.
 -- Stephen Smoogen

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list


Old/compat package naming

2009-11-20 Thread Lubomir Rintel
Hi,

Alexander pointed out that I was suggesting a wrong name for Saxon 9
package [1]. In fact there's a couple of packages in repositories now
that violate the naming policy [2] in the very same way. Apart from
wondering what does Devrim think about renaming the existing saxon
package, I'm wondering what do others (especially the maintainers of
those other packages) think about renaming their packages?

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532664#c7
[2] 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name

The affected packages are these:

antlr   2.7.7-5.fc11
antlr3  3.1.1-7.fc11

automake1.11-2.fc11
automake17  1.7.9-12

glib1:1.2.10-32.fc11
glib2   2.20.5-1.fc11

gtk+1:1.2.10-68.fc11
gtk22.16.6-2.fc11

gtksourceview   1:1.8.5-6.fc11
gtksourceview2  2.6.2-1.fc11

junit   3.8.2-5.4.fc11
junit4  4.5-4.1.fc11

Regards,
Lubo

-- 
Flash is the Web2.0 version of blink and animated gifs.
 -- Stephen Smoogen

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list