On 07/22/2014 04:25 PM, Bill McGonigle wrote:
I've read about the EPEL process on the wiki, but before I go and
65 bugzilla issues
Sorry. I've *re-read* the wiki, specifically the SCM page (I got some
wrong ideas from other pages - the SCM page straightened me out).
I wrote a little script to automate my task list (get the authors,
package review links, generate the template for each package, etc.) and
I find that out of 64 packages (actually 63, one was already Approved
this week) I only have 21 with no EPEL maintainer. Those I'd be willing
I'm assuming if I have a package with a primary maintainer in Fedora who
is non-EPEL but a secondary maintainer who does participate in EPEL,
then it's OK to request the package with the secondary maintainer on the
cc:. I'm not sure that the package database knows to not include the
maintainer who has asked to not be part of EPEL (is the wiki list
definitive?). I've made sure my Owner: line in the template excludes
the non-EPEL folks, so if the system parses that, it should be good.
So I have a list of the packages and links to the package-review bugs
for each with templates ready to paste in, but I cannot set fedora-cvs =
? because I'm not in a packager group. So, back to needing a sponsor
(I think?) to proceed.
Bill McGonigle, Owner
BFC Computing, LLC
Email, IM, VOIP: bill(a)bfccomputing.com
Social networks: bill_mcgonigle/bill.mcgonigle