From Fedora Project Wiki
No edit summary |
(Missing "m" in Excemption anchor) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The fedora-packaging list still exists! https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging -[[User:Spot]] | The fedora-packaging list still exists! https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging -[[User:Spot]] | ||
Should use "permissible", not "permissable". --[[User:nphilipp]] | |||
Are there guidelines in there against the inclusion of trivial stuff? [[User:Fche|Fche]] 23:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
The ''devel requires base package'' example does not reflect ''%{_isa}'' modifier introduced by new guide lines. --[[User:ppisar]] | |||
---- | |||
Anchor in link "https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Review_Process_Exception_Procedure" is incorrect. Should be "https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Review_Process_Exemption_Procedure" | |||
[[User:Hubbitus|Hubbitus]] ([[User talk:Hubbitus|talk]]) 20:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:51, 31 August 2016
Need update: Link to PackageReviewProcess missing, and there is no more fedora-packaging list
The fedora-packaging list still exists! https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging -User:Spot
Should use "permissible", not "permissable". --User:nphilipp
Are there guidelines in there against the inclusion of trivial stuff? Fche 23:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The devel requires base package example does not reflect %{_isa} modifier introduced by new guide lines. --User:ppisar
Anchor in link "https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Review_Process_Exception_Procedure" is incorrect. Should be "https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Review_Process_Exemption_Procedure" Hubbitus (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)