FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-16-2011, 08:12 AM
Mario Santagiuliana
 
Default libgcal new owner

Hi to all,
I'm a new package mantainer. I package akonadi-googledata (now in the
updates-testing). This package needs libgcal library that is without
maintainer.
I contact thomasj, the previous package maintainer and I take the ownership
of this package for Fedora 14 and 15 (hope nearly fedora devel, but I can't
check for EPEL).

I run git log on the repository cloned in my local machine:
$ git log -2 *.spec
commit 5e6b0b48b40198e4c9de33f1d1ba8690303974a5
Author: Dennis Gilmore <dennis@ausil.us>
Date: Mon Feb 7 23:53:21 2011 -0600

- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_Mass_Rebuild

commit 7ee4386d3d5ab4d8eb1dfc397daf552e15ef85a2
Author: Thomas Janssen <thomasj@fedoraproject.org>
Date: Fri Nov 5 11:04:13 2010 +0100

spec fix

So now I should open a new Review request, isn't?
--
Mario Santagiuliana
www.marionline.it
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-16-2011, 12:46 PM
Rex Dieter
 
Default libgcal new owner

Mario Santagiuliana wrote:

> Hi to all,
> I'm a new package mantainer. I package akonadi-googledata (now in the
> updates-testing). This package needs libgcal library that is without
> maintainer.
> I contact thomasj, the previous package maintainer and I take the
> ownership of this package for Fedora 14 and 15 (hope nearly fedora devel,
> but I can't check for EPEL).
>
> I run git log on the repository cloned in my local machine:
> $ git log -2 *.spec
> commit 5e6b0b48b40198e4c9de33f1d1ba8690303974a5
> Author: Dennis Gilmore <dennis@ausil.us>
> Date: Mon Feb 7 23:53:21 2011 -0600
>
> - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_Mass_Rebuild
>
> commit 7ee4386d3d5ab4d8eb1dfc397daf552e15ef85a2
> Author: Thomas Janssen <thomasj@fedoraproject.org>
> Date: Fri Nov 5 11:04:13 2010 +0100
>
> spec fix
>
> So now I should open a new Review request, isn't?

I don't think that's required, just take ownership, and update as normal.

I see you've done that, but you missed "Fedora Devel" too.

-- Rex

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-16-2011, 01:07 PM
Mario Santagiuliana
 
Default libgcal new owner

In data 16/6/2011 14:46:59, Rex Dieter ha scritto:
> I don't think that's required, just take ownership, and update as
> normal.
>
> I see you've done that, but you missed "Fedora Devel" too.
>
> -- Rex

I take the ownership for "Fedora devel" now.
Whatever I open a new review request for my spec file:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713741

There was an inconsistency between spec file on fedora git repo scm master
branch and spec file in src fedora 14...
Than I remove some line in the spec file so I prefer a new review because
I'm new in fedora packager mantainer. So I follow these guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/OrphanedPackages

I hope anybody can take a quickly review.

Thank you very much!
--
Mario Santagiuliana
www.marionline.it
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-16-2011, 01:29 PM
José Matos
 
Default libgcal new owner

On Thursday 16 June 2011 14:07:56 Mario Santagiuliana wrote:
> In data 16/6/2011 14:46:59, Rex Dieter ha scritto:
> > I don't think that's required, just take ownership, and update as
> > normal.
> >
> > I see you've done that, but you missed "Fedora Devel" too.
> >
> > -- Rex
>
> I take the ownership for "Fedora devel" now.
> Whatever I open a new review request for my spec file:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713741
>
> There was an inconsistency between spec file on fedora git repo scm master
> branch and spec file in src fedora 14...
> Than I remove some line in the spec file so I prefer a new review because
> I'm new in fedora packager mantainer. So I follow these guidelines:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/OrphanedPackages
>
> I hope anybody can take a quickly review.
>
> Thank you very much!

The spec file is clean and all seems OK. Trying hard I would say that the
%clean section is not needed because that is the default behavior for rpm.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25clean

Other than that I have no remarks.

If you want to use this package to EPEL you should leave this line and add the
standard BuildRoot.

I hope this helps,
--
José Abílio
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:13 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org