[ACTION REQUIRED v4] Retiring packages for F-18

[Jon Ciesla]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 13:47 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > Jonathan Dieter (jdieter at lesbg.com) said:
>> >> On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 18:24 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> >> > Package numptyphysics (fails to build)
>> >>
>> >> I've updated this to build and posted at
>> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843250
>> >>
>> >> If a package FTBFS and the current maintainer doesn't fix it, will we
>> >> have a chance to take ownership of it before it gets blocked?
>> >
>> > I'd suggest finding a willing provenpackager to help you fix it
>> > if you can't get the maintainer to apply or approve a comaintainership
>> > request.
>>
>> I'm a PP and I've helped with several of Lubo's pacakges in the past.
>> I'm willing to help with this if you like.
>
> Just for the record - Jon went ahead and applied Jonathan's patch, but
> it did not correctly follow the pre-release naming guidelines:

D'oh!  Sorry, I was blinded by the BuildRequires*.

> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
>
> I've gone ahead and pushed a further build which simply corrects this.
> The incorrect NEVR that Jonathan's patch included was
> 0.1.git.20120726.a22cde2%{?dist} . The date is supposed to come before
> 'git', and there are not supposed to be periods between 'git',
> '20120726' and 'a22cde2'. I corrected these errors and bumped the rev,
> so the new build uses a NEVR of 0.2.20120726gita22cde2%{?dist} .
>
> (FWIW, I'm not sure the guidelines are appropriate for Modern Times; the
> date of checkout was only really the most important thing back in the
> days of CVS, where there was really no such thing as a canonical
> revision for the entire project. These days every modern RCS, as far as
> I'm aware, includes the notion of a canonical revision - yet we still
> *require* the date and make it *optional* to include a specific revision
> ID, even though the revision ID is clearly more accurate and specific
> than a date. Maybe we ought to make the revision the key thing to
> include, and make the date optional, except in the special case of the
> few projects still using CVS. Would the packaging committee be
> interested in a proposal? Am I wrong? The date is useful for making it
> immediately obvious how up-to-date a package is, I guess, but it has no
> really key function for differentiating builds any more.)
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
> http://www.happyassassin.net
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

*strung up like a deuce and somethingsomething in the night. . .

-- 
http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/
------------------------------------------------
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie