Bug 193933
| Summary: | Review Request: freepops - free webmails to pop3 daemon | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | buildsys |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Thorsten Leemhuis (ignored mailbox) <bugzilla-sink> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | hdegoede |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2006-06-14 07:01:57 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
buildsys
2006-06-03 00:34:44 UTC
Hi, In order to get sponsored you must first understand that things are currently organised in FE in such a way that once you are sponsored you get full CVS access to all packages. Thus having one good package ready for review usually isn't enough to get you sponsored. There are 2 ways to proceed from here for us (the FE community) to get to learn you better: 1) You review a couple of packages from others see bug 163776 for a list of Review Requests that need a Reviewer, don't worry about not being competent enough todo a review, just add me to the CC-list and I'll watch over your back. 2) Create some more packages and link to them from the BZ ticket. Or (probably the best) a combination of these 2. What also helps is activity in other Fedora projects such as translations etc. What would also help is filling in a real name and using a somewhat more real eamil buildsys@ doesn't inspire much confidence (and cannot be googled to see if you have contributed to other OSS projects which is also always a pre). Here's a couple of quick items that need to be addressed:
1. Don't re-define %dist in your spec.
2. Inconsistant use of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT & %{buildroot}. Pick one, and only use
that in your spec.
3. Why are your appending '.lsn' to the release? If there is no good reason,
drop it.
4. Why are you defining the BuildArch? If the package doesn't build on other
architectures, you should use the ExcludeArch. Once the package is approved,
you will need to have a bug filed in bugzilla for each architecture, describing
the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture.
The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding
ExcludeArch line. Until then, you will need to place the information in the
comments.
5. Drop both of the '%{__rm}' lines from the %prep section, they are unnecessary.
In the future, I would suggest using the Fedora spec template, because most of
these issues are addressed there.
As Hans pointed out in Comment #2, you must demonstrate an understanding of
Fedora Extras Packaging Guidelines, before you can be sponsored.
Trying to redo some of the Bugtriaging I had done which got lost because of the BZ crash. If I remember correctly, then the review submitter was interested in submitting packages not maintaing them as such he was advised to submit packages to f-e-l where an interested maintainer can then pick them up, and the bug was closed as wontfix. Closing as won't fix, please reopen if I remember incorrectly. |