While some SIGs may allow any member of the SIG to request an EPEL
branch for a package, that is up to the SIG to document and communicate
among themselves. The general guidelines for requesting packages should
standardize on direct maintainership.
Fixes: #333
Add deprecation notice, and for package requests, reuse the section to
recommend adding relevant SIGs instead.
Signed-off-by: Michel Lind <salimma@fedoraproject.org>
It is fairly common for users requesting packages to not understand the
relationship between package names, source package names, and bugzilla
components. This change describes that relationship up front to help
users complete their request.
This change also separate the bugzilla fields note into two separate
notes, one for when the component exists in the "Fedora EPEL" product,
and one for when it doesn't and the bug must be filed against the
"Fedora" product.
- use xref links with .adoc extension (fix surplus mark tag in rendered epel-policy.adoc)
- convert d.f.o links to xref links
- fix links (broken; to support internationalization; drop unnecessary anchors)
- move old mail archive link
- add links
- fix typos
Merges: #161
Primary maintainers might not care about EPEL at all and might want to
assign it to an individual.
Signed-off-by: Michel Alexandre Salim <salimma@fedoraproject.org>
This should be epel-packagers-sig. Also add more detailed instructions
on how to grant access.
Signed-off-by: Michel Alexandre Salim <salimma@fedoraproject.org>
