We can't do anything here, this is under releng's purview.

@ngompa https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_review_policy/#what says "The Packaging Committee can grant exceptions to the normal package review process. This may happen, for instance, if a large number of similar packages are being submitted at once or if a package is being updated to a new major version while the old version is being kept in the distribution with a different name. The process for granting exceptions is described at Packaging Committee#Review Process Exemption Procedure." Which definitely makes it sound like an FPC thing.

Looking at the format of this ticket and https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/60772 , it looks like @luya did the right thing and ran fedpkg request-repo --exception f40-backgrounds, as https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Review_Process/ says. I believe that created this ticket.

Okay, I think it's reasonable to add it to the list as fXX-backgrounds.

Proposal: fXX-backgrounds is added to the automatic exemption approval list.

+1 on my part for the proposal

The thing is, we have long provided that exception for the backgrounds packages. I just don't know that such things are readily discoverable. If the package had slightly different naming then it would obviously fall under the general exception for multiple versions of the same package, but it doesn't so we did have to talk about it. But that was ages ago.

If we need to vote again, then sure, I'll +1 but honestly it's pointless. I have already ACKed the SCM request and it has already been processed.

Also, just for clarification, the exception request doesn't create any ticket here as far as I know; it just sets a flag in the SCM request ticket so that the system doesn't auto-reject it and instead leaves it around for one of the SCM admins to ACK.

Also, I didn't intentionally switch the Issue priority around. It seems Pagure will do that if you had the page open from before the metadata.

Thank you @tibbs. Maybe documenting these changes will help in case another maintainer took over fXX-backgrounds packages.

Also, just for clarification, the exception request doesn't create any ticket here as far as I know; it just sets a flag in the SCM request ticket so that the system doesn't auto-reject it and instead leaves it around for one of the SCM admins to ACK.

Also, I didn't intentionally switch the Issue priority around. It seems Pagure will do that if you had the page open from before the metadata.

Could you also fix this issue for Fedora 40 branch? https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/60800

Edit: fixed

+1

Do we need to do any changes before we close this again?

Historically we haven't done the best job of documenting these things. At some point the old review guidelines wiki page was subsumed into the regular packaging guidelines as https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/ and sadly it looks like some content was lost when that happened. I had honestly forgotten about that happening.

I have no ides if we can even find any permanent exceptions we had granted after all this time, but we should at least document this specific one. There's an obvious place to do it, so let me cook something up.

Edit: Oh, wow, so the whole section at the I thought was missing is just the list of footnotes, which appears just fine when I build locally. I guess the docs site has an issue rendering footnotes. Not much we can do about that.