rpms/fftw/EL-4 fftw.spec,1.9,1.10 sources,1.3,1.4

[Jussi Lehtola]

On Sat, 2010-01-02 at 15:10 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> On 01/02/2010 03:01 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-01-02 at 14:34 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Well, in principle Fedora doesn't have to care about 3rd party repos.
> 
> I strongly disagree with that assertion.
> 
> I feel it is very important work together with other repos, especially 
> one with the history (and clout) such as rpmforge.  Hint: rpmforge was 
> around long before EPEL.
> 
> See also,
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#What_about_compatibility_with_other_third_party_repositories.3F
> 
> Which mentions the importance of making reasonable efforts to maintain 
> compatibility.

OK. But this is not a question of compatibility: I did not touch it, it
is still there. This is more of a question of adhering to the Fedora
guidelines. If someone from rpmforge complains, we can refer to the
guidelines. If you feel strongly about it, you can ask FESCo for an
exception from the naming guidelines.

>  > But, as a helping hand the Obsoletes: and Provides: are in place,
>  > offering a clean upgrade path and full compatibility with the old
>  > rpmforge packages.
> 
> I offerred that in the past, and it was summarily rejected.  Please, if 
> you insist, please revisit the flames/threads on rpmforge mailing 
> lists... or just take my word for it. :)

I am quite satisfied with your word, but I really don't see the fuss
about the whole thing as long as the upgrade paths are there
(Obsoletes). Besides, old spec files work as well, since the Provides
are there, too.

This is just a package renamal done according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Renaming.2Freplacing_existing_packages

-- 
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola at fedoraproject.org