Re: procedure for renaming a package

[Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info>]

On 05.10.2008 08:09, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus free fr 
> <mailto:pertusus free fr>> wrote:
>     I'd like to rename tetex-tex4ht to tex-tex4ht together with
>     texlivisation. However I cannot find in the wiki the procedure that can
>     be used to rename a package without changing anything else. There are a
>     lot of information somehow related but nothing really appropriate -- or
>     I didn't found it.
>
>     More precisely, it doesn't seems to be on
>     http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure
>     There are elements on
>     http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageEndOfLife
>     but it isn't really appropriate (in my opinion appropriate informations
>     should go here).
>     I found nothing relevant in
>     http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/UpdatingPackageHowTo
>     http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/UsingPackagedb
>     http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/UsingCvsFaq
>
>     Did I missed something? If not, what is the procedure?
>     <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list>

Google found this for me:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20061207

Quoting:
"""
>   Free Discussion
>
>     * Renaming packages
>     * When a package is renamed, the package owner is allowed to import the 
>
> renamed package as a new module, mark the old module as a dead.package and request branches. Referring to the old package and the fact that this is a rename helps people know what's going on in regards to the branches.
>
>     * Part of this policy is listed here: 
>
> http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/PackageEndOfLife and we can link to that as a reference.
>
>     * awjb will document this. 
"""

But:

> Renaming a package is just bringing in the new package, getting it 
> reviewed, particularly for correct Provides/Obsoletes, and then 
> requesting that the old named package be removed.

That's how i remember it as well; the FESCo decision above was IIRC 
changed to "review renamed package" later. But seems neither of the two 
decisions were properly documented in the wiki afaics :-/

Cu
knurd