PackagingDrafts/RenamingPackages

= Changelog =

0.1: Initial draft

= Existing Guideline =

Treat Packages as new packages and have a full Review. Followed by marking the old package dead in cvs and following EOL policy.

= Proposed Guideline =

Packages are sometimes renamed, either by upstream action or locally in the collection to more closely match NamingGuidelines. This policy explains the procedure for renaming packages.


 * The maintainer of the package that is to be renamed will create spec files and src.rpms with the new name and the needed Provides/Obsoletes based on Packaging/NamingGuidelines


 * Links to this proposed renamed package will be posted to the fedora-devel mailing list for inspection of the development community.


 * Once approved by another package maintainer, the package maintainer can request CVS for the newly named module citing the mailing list post approval.


 * Once the new package has been imported, the maintainer should use the PackageMaintainers/PackageEndOfLife procedure on the old package.

= Pages which will need changes =


 * Packaging/NamingGuidelines
 * PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure
 * PackageMaintainers/Policy

= Discussion =


 * Should a re-review be required instead of just a mailing list approval?
 * Given how often people get the provides/obsoletes wrong is just one approval on the list enough?
 * Should approval come from provenpackagers or some other group? Or is maintainers enough?
 * There needs to be a way to handle mass renames that does not depend on each individual packager concerned by the rename initiating the renaming himself.

- I think Obsoletes/Provides check or so is needed and re-review is more proper than approval on mailing list. Anyway I don't think reapproval will take long if the original spec file was in good shape - Mamoru