xfce-4.2.0 i386 rpms for devel/rawhide

[Kevin Fenzi]

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

>>>>> "Warren" == Warren Togami <wtogami at redhat.com> writes:

Warren> Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
>>> Speaking of versions, should I have 4.2.0 (or 4.2.1) tagged for
>>> both the fc3 and devel trees? Is there any problem with fedora
>>> extras releasing a newer version of a package than was in core?
>>> (Or should we have 4.0.6 or nothing in the fc3 tree, and only do
>>> the newer versions for devel/fc4?)
>> Its your call. Normally, we don't let Fedora Extras packages
>> conflict with Core, but since xfce moved from Core to Extras, as
>> long as your packages are a newer version, there shouldn't be any
>> issue.  You'd just need to upgrade everything that depends on any
>> of the xfce bits (which you seem to be doing already), to avoid
>> breaking FC3 xfce users who have Extras in their yum.conf.  For
>> other packages, this would be a logistical nightmare, but xfce is
>> fairly well self-contained.  (I need to word this in a more formal
>> policy, but I think you get the idea)

Warren> Why don't we test it in FC4 Extras and the equivalent on the
Warren> side.  Then once we're sure everything is fine we can push it
Warren> as a FC3 Update.  The entire KDE was upgraded after the
Warren> release of FC3, so why not XFCE? =)

I was thinking we could push the current setup (which all works
wonderfully with several fc3 machines here) out to
fedora-extras-testing and leave it there for a while for
feedback. Then I could easily point people to it to test, but the
regular fedora-extras users wouldn't see it until we push it out to
the main fedora-extras. 

Warren> Warren Togami wtogami at rdhat.com

kevin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iD8DBQFCNcfv3imCezTjY0ERAi1vAJ94/3QvRdg+5/Gpir32MmrJvMccRwCgh2mJ
l13CYsaum0AuCjiXAHOa5LQ=
=72KK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----