What is public/private fork? - Criteria packaging in fedora

[Huzaifa Sidhpurwala]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,
So taking into consideration all the feed back , here are the changes done:

- - bump soname in the code from 1.2.11 to 1.2.12
- - In the srpm, libtar-ng now obsoletes libtar, so that the conflicts are
resolved.
- - Tar ball is bz2 and not gzip to save space.
- - The autom4te.cache dir is now removed.
- - License changes from MIT to BSD as per the original suggestion of the
author.
- - Removed README.new from the tar and updated README with new code
details,
  Also updated COPYRIGHT, while retaining the original clauses.

SPEC:
http://huzaifas.fedorapeople.org/spec/libtar-ng.spec

SRPM:
http://huzaifas.fedorapeople.org/srpms/libtar-ng-1.2.12-1.fc12.src.rpm

Any more comments/suggestions would be welcome.

Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote:
>> I have forked libtar as libtar-ng, because the upstream does not have
>> time to maintain it anymore.
>>
>> Here is the bz:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=546169
>>
>> Now the question is what is a private fork?
>> Am i wrong in forking it and packaging in fedora?
> 
> IMHO, this should be packaged, and in a way to Obsoletes/Provides: libtar as 
> it's backwards-compatible and actually actively maintained unlike libtar. 
> The Obsoletes/Provides should of course be versioned, so if a new libtar 
> springs up at a later point (i.e. if the maintainer really goes back to 
> actively developing it), it can be introduced instead of or in addition to 
> the fork.
> 
>         Kevin Kofler
> 


- --
Regards,
Huzaifa Sidhpurwala, RHCE, CCNA (IRC: huzaifas)

GnuPG Fingerprint:
3A0F DAFB 9279 02ED 273B FFE9 CC70 DCF2 DA5B DAE5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Red Hat - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iD8DBQFLJfeNzHDc8tpb2uURAmAPAJ95Bi1pavbb9YmT6vfksjHzgf59rgCfXm75
E+X/Aa6LF+RwXiq7ExupLUQ=
=oSV4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----