On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 9:46 PM Gary Buhrmaster <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 2:23 AM Jerry James <[email protected]> wrote: > > > That is a MUST, so the packages listed below are in violation of the > > guidelines. > > Thanks for the actual checking (that > is more effort than I was interested > in doing). > > A few of those seem to be somewhat > important (such as "kernel"). > > I would guess (and it is only a guess) > that many of these packages (and > perhaps their current packagers) > predate the most recent guidelines. > > AFAIK when a package guideline is > updated or clarified, there is not a > systematic review of existing > packages. > > That does suggest that those > proposing changes in guidelines > need to also take ownership of the > process to fix packages that no > longer in compliance with their > proposals.
So, this rule has been in place since at least December 2014, from what I can tell: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:Guidelines&oldid=398209#Manpages That's a long time from when the guidelines were introduced (2005) to when the rule was added. At a glance, a lot of those packages are from that window. But I'd actually be more concerned about info pages, which we don't have a note about in the guidelines. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
