On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:37:15 +0000 James Hogarth <james.hogarth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I read it and other documents when I submitted, and then found that there were steps
(running rpmlint) that had to be taken which was not mentioned anywhere then.
Note that the mailing list bears no relation to the address in FAS ... this
is what we are talking about (ignoring the preference for real name over
pseudonym in bugzilla).
OK, I fixed this, I hope!
Although adjusting spec as per direction from others you don't appear to be
making an effort on the process/people side of things.
But should a volunteer effort be so complicated? That is the question. Yes, we can always
point to voluminous, sometimes outdated, sometimes inconsistent writeups, but therein lies
the problem.
I laid out clear steps for you to follow - they are not complicated.
Perhaps not to someone familiar with the process. But volunteer efforts, on all sides,
should be streamlined as far as possible. I certainly feel it is not.
If you aren't willing to do the modicum amount of work to actually take
part in packagers group and seek a sponsor then I'm not willing to take
time out of my day to go through fedora-review on your packaging request.
But what did I not look into that you(?) or someone else asked me to?
Incidentally the 'EOL' notice you're expecting won't happen with a
packaging request as that's targeted against rawhide and not a specific
fedora revision.
I see, that is good to know. Incidentally, all these RPMs have been running on my systems
for years (sylfilter)/months(pdf-stapler).
Thanks,
Ranjan
--
Important Notice: This mailbox is ignored: e-mails are set to be deleted on receipt.
Please respond to the mailing list if appropriate. For those needing to send personal or
professional e-mail, please use appropriate addresses.
____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop!
Check it out at
http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium