Policy proposal for compatibility packages

[Brian Pepple]

On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 18:05 +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Brian Pepple [02/01/2008 17:59] :
> >
> > FESCo discussed this back at our last meeting, but before we pulled the
> > trigger on this, I want to get feedback from the mailing list.  I'm
> > tentatively planning on having FESCo vote on this at the 2008-01-10
> > meeting, though that could change based on any feedback I receive.
> 
> Should upstream be informed/consulted/given-veto-power ?

I think it probably makes sense to have a good dialog with upstream
(which applies with all packages, not just compat), but I'm not sure if
it's necessary to formally require that upstream be consulted when
proposing a compat package.

/B
-- 
Brian Pepple <bpepple at fedoraproject.org>

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BrianPepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B  CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
-------------- 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/20080102/5a749e85/attachment.sig>