[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Review Request: fftw3, cln, GiNaC, octave-forge



On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:48:33 -0500, Quentin Spencer wrote:

> >Who was the one who volunteered to review and approve your packages?
> >Also, where are "octave" and "octave-devel"? They have been removed from
> >Fedora Core.
> >  
> >
> Spot was my original sponsor, who did look at my packages before I 
> checked them into CVS. Several people responded to my initial CVS 
> checkins, and I have corrected all of the problems that came up. Does 
> that constitute approval or does there need to be a final review?

"Approval" is when somebody sends an "APPROVED: packagename(s)" message
to fedora-extras-commits list.
 
> I haven't started working on packaging octave yet because I'm still 
> working on an FC3 system at the moment. My original plan was to get 
> these packages added, approved, and built on FC3, and then begin working 
> on building octave for FC4.

Then you should request an FC-3 branch for your packages first.
This is done here  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/CVSSyncNeeded
and is explained in the Fedora Extras CVS FAQ, too.

> From the octave mailing lists I understand 
> this could be a bit of an undertaking with the move from g77 to 
> gfortran. Anyway, this was a perfectly reasonable plan back in February 
> when I first asked for sponsorship, but obviously the process has taken 
> much longer than planned. Should I work on building octave for FC4 
> before I get any of these approved?

IMHO, I would really make sure there is an upgrade path to FC4 for your
packages. If you released packages only for FC3 and [late in the FC4
development cycle] ran into problems with getting them to build/work on
FC4, that would not be a good situation. FC4 should take precedence.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]