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

[Quentin Spencer <qspencer ieee org>]

Michael Schwendt wrote:

> 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 was aware of that, but who has authority to do this? Can I do it, 
based on having corrected all outstanding issues? Or must my sponsor or 
somebody else?  I have followed the discussions about this on the list, 
but I never felt like it was completely clarified.

> > 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.
>  
I was under the impression that I had to get the package approved first 
(this question is not address in either of those places). If that's not 
the case, I'll go ahead and request a branch.

> > 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.
>  
Of course. Like I said, the original intention was for this to be done 
long before "late in the FC4 development cycle". Hopefully I'll get to 
work on packaging octave soon.

-Quentin