Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||Review Request: EMBOSS 6.1.0 - EPEL Branch|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Sean M. Collins <sean>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>|
|Status:||CLOSED DUPLICATE||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||belegdol, fedora-package-review, notting, susi.lehtola, tomspur|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2010-01-15 06:26:00 EST||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
Description Sean M. Collins 2010-01-13 11:51:19 EST
Spec URL: http://helix.b-techconsulting.com/~scollins/rpm/SPECS/emboss.spec SRPM URL: http://helix.b-techconsulting.com/~scollins/rpm/SRPMS/EMBOSS-6.1.0-1.centos5.src.rpm Description: This is a packaged version of the latest stable EMBOSS that has been built and tested on CentOS 5. I spoke with the Fedora Core EMBOSS maintainer, Julian Sikorski in December about trying to get an EPEL branch created of EMBOSS.
Comment 1 Thomas Spura 2010-01-13 14:05:43 EST
When it's already in fedora, why doesn't the Fedora maintainer create the EPEL branch and you can maintain it with him in parallel? The package in fedora is named EMBOSS, your .spec file should be named the same.
Comment 2 Julian Sikorski 2010-01-13 15:02:37 EST
The problem is that Sean is not yet a Fedora packager, and he needs to be sponsored. Unfortunately, we have no fast track procedure for people who would only like to co-maintain packages.
Comment 3 Susi Lehtola 2010-01-15 06:26:00 EST
Still, there's no sense in reviewing this: submitting an already reviewed spec doesn't say anything about Sean's skills. The sponsor process has some liberties; if a sponsor has already assured himself/herself that Sean is capable s/he'll sponsor him. If not, then I suggest he package something that is not yet in Fedora and submit that for approval. The opening of the EPEL branch of EMBOSS happens in the EMBOSS review bug #496133. Closing as duplicate. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 496133 ***