[Bug 529496] Review Request: libmtag - An advanced C music tagging library with a simple API

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529496

Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|mschwendt at gmail.com         |

--- Comment #49 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com> 2010-01-13 13:47:58 EST ---
Felipe,

you presume too much.

Go back a few comments to see that I explicitly referred to "the C++ file". And
still you didn't take a close look at the build.log. You choose to pay no
attention to "the C++ file".

Prior to that you could have simply taken the review serious. At least a little
bit of trust in that the reviewer *may* be right. I wrote: "It still doesn't
honour RPM_OPT_FLAGS" which referred to the earlier mission objective. Instead
of trying to insult me, you could have asked for help on how to verify optflags
usage. A simple reply such as "Where? I fail to see it" would have done it. The
way you reacted left much to be desired, however.


As a general comment on those optflags: It's easy to miss such a detail in the
build.log. It's only one small item in the packaging guidelines. In the review
guidelines, it's only covered indirectly by this:

   MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

And burried deep in the packaging guidelines, it's this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags

It can happen that a single subdirectory doesn't apply the optflags, while the
rest of a project applies them just fine. Or a single subdir overrides the
optflags in questionable ways.


Anyway, many reviews don't just consist of a sequence of "do this, do that"
items, or else the reviewer would simply provide the fixed spec file. Packagers
are expected to do most of the work, to learn, to read the packaging
guidelines, to become capable of fixing packages themselves in accordance with
additional documentation, and to show whether they know their stuff in order to
convince a sponsor. [Many packagers are expected to demonstrate an
understanding of the review guidelines even, by doing a couple of reviews
completely on their own.] Once a packager's account request is approved, there
isn't any package reviewing process for updates applied to packages in fedora
package scm. That means, you will get less hand-guiding or none at all - unless
your sponsor (or somebody else) monitors your packaging activity closely.


> It's better to go back and forth a couple of
> times without pointing out the problem.

Nah, that's just your rather typical way of twisting things and making the
process tiresome. The initial mission objective was clear:

  MUSTFIX: Package doesn't honor RPM_OPT_FLAGS

Either you understand what that means, where to look it up in the guidelines,
and how to fix the issue -- or you don't. In case of the latter, ask. Simple as
that.

[...]

Rest assured, my patience is not endless. I only made the mistake of letting
bugzilla put me onto the Cc list again. ;-)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.