[Bug 168719] Review Request: gdal
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gdal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168719
------- Additional Comments From mccann0011(a)hotmail.com 2006-06-02 12:44 EST -------
Regarding gdal, I'd be happy to finish this one off if there are no other
volunteers. It's a bit of a beast due to the dependencies and testing whether
the package is working right is also time consuming. But, as Rudolf noted, this
package is key to getting the open-source GIS packages into Fedora (QGIS, Grass,
etc) and until its approved, Fedora won't have any GIS applications in the
extras repository.
I had a package ready last fall but then saw that this submission was already in
progress. I exchanged emails with Silke back in January to see if she wanted any
help getting this finished off, but haven't pushed to get closure.
My vote is to declare this an orphan package and let someone else take it over
and finish it off (either by starting fresh or fixing up what exists).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
18 years
[Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libgeotiff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178162
------- Additional Comments From mccann0011(a)hotmail.com 2006-06-02 12:37 EST -------
Seeing the discussions for the gdal issue, its probably time to ping the
reviewers and see what the status of this package is. From my point of view, the
issues that have been raised have all been answered - the main issue being the
licensing of the EPSG data. As noted above, this package, as well as proj, gdal,
etc all come from the same upstream author and all contain the EPSG tables. My
research showed that there was no intent from the distributors of this data to
exclude it from open-source use. These packages are all available in the debian
world.
Anyways, if someone can rereview this and let me know if there are still
outstanding issues, I'd be happy to address them. We can also consider the
upgrade to 1.2.3 now or after submission.
PS Note that gdal contains an embedded libgeotiff package
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
18 years
[Bug 168719] Review Request: gdal
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gdal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168719
------- Additional Comments From rc040203(a)freenet.de 2006-06-02 10:37 EST -------
In reply to comment #22)
> > Jerks "stopping by and dropping a Review bomb" don't help anybody. They should
> > be sanctioned.
> >
> > If Fedora doesn't have a policy on this, it should be implemented.
> >
> #21
> well then instead of posting in tons of review requests id suggest to work on
> getting a policy out that doesent hurt progress.
> i dont see it as review bomb.
I do. Just have a look at the timeline of Silke's responses. There are many
months inbetween any response of hers. Have a look at how many times she had
been asked to respond, ... nothing much since ...
Finally, this is not the first incident of this type with Silke - IIRC, the same
has happened in Fedora.US. - So, I am not negative, I am drawing conclusions
based on former contacts with her.
As it seems to me, her opinion is, she can "stop by", "drop her spec" and let
others polish it - She should learn she's in error.
> why not deal with it rather in a manner as with orphaned packages -> orphaned
> review request. someone else can take over and can continue to work on the
> existing base.
I am opposed to doing this, because this would encourage people to perform
"drive-by review request bombs". Instead, people should to understand that if
they submit a package for review, it's their baby they are dropping and they'll
be expected to take care about it in future.
If that's not acceptable to them, they 'd better stay away from FE.
> i want progress not wheel reinvention by having someone else starting from
> scratch and having all the stuff repeated over and over.
Well, I am not opposed in somebody else adopting Silke's package. But it won't
be me - I am not her coding-monkey.
> gdal is an important key component for various interesting things.
Exactly, that's why I want to see this "damn thing" nailed down.
Actually, I want
* Silke to wake up and start cooperating
or
* some volunteer to take over her package
or
* somebody closing this RR, giving others the liberty of resubmitting a new one.
> also e.g. in the case of initng ...
initng and my other very friend elektra are completely different cases. IMO,
these packages are a million miles away off from being ready for public use.
In case of gdal the situation different: This simply is a case of a submitter
being non-responsive for reasons I can only speculate on.
> hope you dont take the response as offensive.. its not meant to be.
Understood.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
18 years
[Bug 168719] Review Request: gdal
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gdal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168719
------- Additional Comments From paul(a)city-fan.org 2006-06-02 10:25 EST -------
(In reply to comment #22)
> why not deal with it rather in a manner as with orphaned packages -> orphaned
> review request. someone else can take over and can continue to work on the
> existing base.
FWIW, something similar happened with milter-regex. I was reviewing it and found
it sufficiently interesting that I started using the package myself. For
whatever reason, the original poster lost interest in it and after a few
unanswered requests, I resubmitted the package myself and closed the original
review request as a duplicate of my new one. Somebody else then reviewed "my"
package, and it's now in Extras.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
18 years