[ACTION REQUIRED v4] Retiring packages for F-18

[Adam Williamson]

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:

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