fedora.us QA, Vendor, Packager and more

[Marius L. Jøhndal]

On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 10:36 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > I think this should be explained in the QA.
> > 
> > It is not related to package quality.
> 
> It derives from what you see that a package of quality shouldn't have a
> Packager nor a Vendor field. It seems to me the kind of helpfull rule to avoid
> having to take a decision or ask on a mailing list, similar with the advice to
> change Copyright to Licence. I had a look at the spec files to try to make an
> opinion from the examples, however finding that a field shouldn't be present
> would have required to look at all the spec files.

Related to package quality or not, these things are now mentioned here:
http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackagingHints.

-- 
Marius L. Jøhndal <mariuslj at ifi.uio.no>
Credo certe ne cras.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20040308/5662e9a8/attachment.sig>