SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/perl-Lucy.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/perl-Lucy-0.3.3-1.el7.src.rpm Description Lucy is a loose port of the Java search engine library Apache Lucene, written in Perl and C. The archetypal application is website search, but it can be put to many different uses.
Created attachment 851650 [details] Changes to KinoSearch FWIW this is just a modification of KinoSearch
* license OK * rpmbuild (epel6, x86_64) OK * rpmlint (rather) OK: perl-Lucy.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Lucene -> Luce, Lucien, Lucite perl-Lucy.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Lucy/Lucy.bs 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. APPROVED
Thank you! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: perl-Lucy Short Description: Search engine library Owners: lkundrak jplesnik ppisar Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC: perl-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
(In reply to Lubomir Rintel from comment #3) > Thank you! > > New Package SCM Request > ======================= > Package Name: perl-Lucy > Short Description: Search engine library > Owners: lkundrak jplesnik ppisar > Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 > InitialCC: perl-sig Could you please stop adding random people to your packages?
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #5) > (In reply to Lubomir Rintel from comment #3) > > Thank you! > > > > New Package SCM Request > > ======================= > > Package Name: perl-Lucy > > Short Description: Search engine library > > Owners: lkundrak jplesnik ppisar > > Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 > > InitialCC: perl-sig > > Could you please stop adding random people to your packages? No.
Just a small clarification: the "random people" were the maintainers of the perl-KinoSearch package, which is the old name of this. I assumed (and rightly so I believe), that it's appropriate that people who already deal with the code base are granted permissions they have in the original package. (I've mostly seen them do bulk rebuilds of Perl packages.) Unfortunately, the granularity of what can be specified in an SCM admin request does not reflect what can be done in pkgdb. If anyone feels that he has an extra permission set in pkgdb he can adjust it according to their needs; some already did. They are notified by mail when they are granted permissions in pkgdb, therefore it does not happen without their knowledge. Thanks for your understanding! Tha package was imported and built -- thanks for the review and SCM!
Funny, I'm maintainer of perl-KinoSearch even if I gave up of all my Fedora packages. I also replied to your email, when I said I'm not interested in EPEL maintenance. I'll run script to remove me from all EPEL branches.
(In reply to Marcela Mašláňová from comment #9) > Funny, I'm maintainer of perl-KinoSearch even if I gave up of all my Fedora > packages. I also replied to your email, when I said I'm not interested in > EPEL maintenance. > I'll run script to remove me from all EPEL branches. Sorry for the hassle. This is exactly the case described above; it's not possible to selectively enable permissions for specific branches via SCM admin requests. I figured that an extra permissions which is easily given up is a better idea than to omit someone with interest. It might be a good idea to add yourself here -- this is useful when people determine who to ask for maintenance of EPEL branches: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo That said, it might be that you got an extra mail or two, despite you explicitly expressed non-interest in EPEL. We rely quite heavily on significant portion of Perl stack being in EPEL and I used to ask packagers about the branching by mailing <package>-owner until I learned it's a really bad idea. Sorry for that.