On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 7:01 PM Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote: > That would be in violation of our stable updates policy and would need > a special FESCo exemption. It would require a compelling argument > (like: "upstream changed its mind on how long it would be supported").
Ack and good to know. In that case, yes, the metapackage is/would be just an alternative way to specify a default stream for the given Fedora release. We could think of making the `nodejs` always a Provide in that case – from my experience writing some tests, I would prefer to always have the rpm name contain the version and not care of whether it is currently the default or not. I would still like to see the metapackage as a separate rpm, if only to keep parity with RHEL (see my other answer). -- Jan Stanek Software Engineer Red Hat IM: @jstanek -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
