From 34d73cac51966d530e4e6e5191ebc6761468212c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Carl George Date: Oct 15 2020 20:53:41 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Add review exception for alternatively named EPEL packages https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1020 --- diff --git a/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ReviewGuidelines.adoc b/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ReviewGuidelines.adoc index f9618b2..87b1179 100644 --- a/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ReviewGuidelines.adoc +++ b/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ReviewGuidelines.adoc @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ Contributors and reviewers MUST follow the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packag * FPC grants an explicit exemption from the process, as indicated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Review_Process_Exemption_Procedure[here]. * The package is being created so that multiple versions of the same package can coexist in the distribution. The package MUST be properly named according to the xref:Naming.adoc#_multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name[naming guidelines] and MUST NOT conflict with all other versions of the same package. If these requirements are not met, an exemption is required as above. +* The package exists in both Fedora and RHEL, but the packager wants to ship it in EPEL under an alternative name (as required by https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Policy[EPEL policy]) to provide a subpackage that exists in Fedora but does not exist (or is not shipped) in RHEL. == Things To Check On Review From 38cf04d67538bf468ded65f16e3f5fdd55ef5bfa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Carl George Date: Oct 15 2020 21:02:07 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] Clarify multiversioned package exception is for EPEL too --- diff --git a/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ReviewGuidelines.adoc b/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ReviewGuidelines.adoc index 87b1179..d1faa29 100644 --- a/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ReviewGuidelines.adoc +++ b/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ReviewGuidelines.adoc @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ This is a set of guidelines for Package Reviews. Note that a complete list of th Contributors and reviewers MUST follow the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process[Package Review Process], with the following exceptions: * FPC grants an explicit exemption from the process, as indicated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Review_Process_Exemption_Procedure[here]. -* The package is being created so that multiple versions of the same package can coexist in the distribution. The package MUST be properly named according to the xref:Naming.adoc#_multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name[naming guidelines] and MUST NOT conflict with all other versions of the same package. If these requirements are not met, an exemption is required as above. +* The package is being created so that multiple versions of the same package can coexist in the distribution (or coexist between EPEL and RHEL). The package MUST be properly named according to the xref:Naming.adoc#_multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name[naming guidelines] and MUST NOT conflict with all other versions of the same package. If these requirements are not met, an exemption is required as above. * The package exists in both Fedora and RHEL, but the packager wants to ship it in EPEL under an alternative name (as required by https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Policy[EPEL policy]) to provide a subpackage that exists in Fedora but does not exist (or is not shipped) in RHEL. == Things To Check On Review From ae8c1b9bd42493af0a03cc5fe69127aa23fca7f4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Carl George Date: Oct 15 2020 21:03:08 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Remove redunant sentence --- diff --git a/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ReviewGuidelines.adoc b/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ReviewGuidelines.adoc index d1faa29..9a00852 100644 --- a/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ReviewGuidelines.adoc +++ b/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ReviewGuidelines.adoc @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ This is a set of guidelines for Package Reviews. Note that a complete list of th Contributors and reviewers MUST follow the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process[Package Review Process], with the following exceptions: * FPC grants an explicit exemption from the process, as indicated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Review_Process_Exemption_Procedure[here]. -* The package is being created so that multiple versions of the same package can coexist in the distribution (or coexist between EPEL and RHEL). The package MUST be properly named according to the xref:Naming.adoc#_multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name[naming guidelines] and MUST NOT conflict with all other versions of the same package. If these requirements are not met, an exemption is required as above. +* The package is being created so that multiple versions of the same package can coexist in the distribution (or coexist between EPEL and RHEL). The package MUST be properly named according to the xref:Naming.adoc#_multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name[naming guidelines] and MUST NOT conflict with all other versions of the same package. * The package exists in both Fedora and RHEL, but the packager wants to ship it in EPEL under an alternative name (as required by https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Policy[EPEL policy]) to provide a subpackage that exists in Fedora but does not exist (or is not shipped) in RHEL. == Things To Check On Review