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

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

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.


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