https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2398039
--- Comment #48 from Cristian Le <[email protected]> --- The binary package yes (what the users calls with `dnf install`). The srpm, it depends. Do you care about the previous history in src.fp.o/rpms/chatterino2? If not, it would be fine and can just consider it as a whole new review. Complexity wise, it just requires adding an `Obsolete`, and either adding `%package chatterino` for the first case (only binary package rename) or renaming the spec file and request for the other case (renaming the srpm). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2398039 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202398039%23c48 -- _______________________________________________ package-review 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
