[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 10:56:28 -0500, Quentin Spencer wrote:

> >>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?

The current NewPackageProcess page in the Wiki uses the term "package
sponsor", which is the person who volunteers to review and approve your
packages with the notification message mentioned above.

> 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.

Just following discussions silently may not be enough. Voice your opinion
in case something in the documentation is not clear. I've volunteered to
update the NewPackageProcess [in a few hours probably], because almost
everyone agreed that the used terminology ("package sponsor") is
confusing, and some steps are ambigous, too. But I still have the feeling
that there is strong disagreement about the overall process, the
reviewing, the approvals.

> >>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.

Explicit approval is necessary prior to building packages. 

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