Description of problem, bug, incorrect information, or enhancement request: Off the top of my head, also: - Maelstrom - libtabe - recode - SDL_image - SDL_mixer - SDL_net - xboard - gnuchess - balsa A better rundown of this needs done. Version of release notes this bug refers to: Fedora Core 4 final release
Short term I will add these packages to the list. I was not happy with the lists I did during testing, they were treediffs between FC3-HEAD and FC4, and were entirely without context. Rahul asked me to repeat that for the release, but I don't know if it is useful or harmful to include. I punted by taking the list that Rahul knew. If it seems worthwhile still, I can include the list of packages that were in FC3 but are not in FC4. That doesn't say where they went to, if they got renamed, etc. Like I said, of dubious value. Unfortunately there isn't a good method or process for capturing these changes. I've had multiple discussions about this recently. So far, the best option seems to be something like this: A. We need to help define what is worth release noting about a package change, such as a rename, move to Extras, move to Core, etc. B. When a package is changed: 1. Developer could put a brief explanation as to what, why, where, etc. plus a keyword such as RELNOTES in the commit log. 2. That keyword triggers a message to relnotes@/mailing list/automatic bugzilla entry (long shot idea). Something so it doesn't get lost. 3. Once a release we rally around the RELNOTES captures and make up a list, then get it vetted during the testing notes. 4. If a developer has a story to tell that is too long for the commit log, an email can be sent to relnotes@/mailing list Right now we just have relnotes, which is the owner of these bugs. We -might- want to make that a full mailing list such as fedora-release-notes-list that can then be a bug owner, receiver of developer tales, and discussion forum.
Fixed previously, closing old bug.