Review queue/FESCo after the merge

Thorsten Leemhuis fedora at leemhuis.info
Thu Nov 15 17:24:28 UTC 2007



On 15.11.2007 12:41, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> On 11/15/2007 10:43 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>
>>> Hans de Goede (j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl) said:
>>>> Christopher Aillon wrote:
>>>>> * Make sure that there are no cases of Requires(pre,post)
>>>> Erm, why isn't the use of those perfectly "legal"
>>> As I understand it, Requires(pre) is OK, Requires(post) is OK,
>>> Requires(pre,post) is not.
>> IIRC that's supposed to work these days (FC >= 6, RHEL >= 5). If not, 
>> file a bug...
> Then we should consider updating our guidelines.  This brings up a good 
> point, too.  If a given package guideline exists to work around bugs 
> like this in the future, the guideline really must reference the bug # 
> so it can be easier to revisit at a future date.

Agreed, albeit I'm not sure if the exact bug # is needed -- the
information "need in FC > foo and RHEL > bar" is the important one. And
maintaining that properly is more important due to EPEL, as we'll still
have to deal with EPEL for EL4 for some years.

CU
knurd




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list