Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 456955
Review-Request: libzdb - Zild Database Library
Last modified: 2009-02-17 19:55:56 EST
Description of problem:
New package: libzdb
Dependency for: dbmail 2.3.3 (uploaded in another report)
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
SRPM and SPEC included.
Steps to Reproduce:
Created attachment 312821 [details]
SRPM for libzdb - builds on fedora-rawhide (10) - amd64
Created attachment 312822 [details]
SPEC file for libzdb.
Are these review requests going to be more drive-by submissions like the Haskell
ones you recently submitted, or do you plan to respond to bugzilla comments from
potential reviewers this time?
I don't understand where you guys got the label of "drive-by" submissions.
I am a serious developer and I am NOT trying to gain any personal mileage by
what you call "drive-by" submissions.
I like Fedora and I am trying to improve the availability of packages on
I believe the only problem at that time with the Haskell packages was that I
could create a lot of packages but did not know that we need to submit SRPMS
as well. If I had known that I needed to sumbit the SRPMS as well, you
wouldn't be labelling like this today.
I am in the process of recreating a lot of those packages, and this time I am
checking them with rpmlint, running a Fedora Rawhide virtual machine to create
install and test, and then upload them to this bugzilla.
If I were you, I would be glad that someone documented the actual steps of
creating the Haskell packages for a lot of packages that other developers use
on other distros, but not on Fedora. At least if there was another developer
searching for a specific Haskell module on Fedora, he/she could come to this
bugzilla and follow the steps I had listed to get on with his/her
requirements. I don't understand why everyone at your side took so much
offense to those submissions.
Of course it would have been nice if I had retained all the SRPMS and uploaded
them with every one of those emails in the first place, but I must accept my
lack of the knowledge of the guidelines at that time and am continuing to face
this denigration. And guess what, the little of what Fedora Haskell packaging
guidelines were supposed to be were not even in place, and I an not certain if
they still are at this time.
So if we all want to get on with the goal of improving the availability of
packages for Fedora (which I am sure both of us do), then let me submit the
packages, and I promise I would follow your feedback. This is irrespective of
whether you accept the packges for upstream, because having that knowledge
documented somewhere would serve as a reference for someone else later.
Unfortunately the only place to do so is this bugzilla, AFAIK.
I do very much appreciate the good work the people on the Fedora team is doing
and I do value your feedback and criticisms (no offense taken).
I'm not sure what happened with the haskell packages, but as the person
responsible for the drive to get better haskell support in Fedora, I want to
thank you for taking the time to submit the packages.
Last January, I tried to submit packages of my own, and they were outright
rejected because there were no suitable guidelines in place. I've been working
on it in my free time though. If you can get in touch with me at
firstname.lastname@example.org, i'd be more than happy to talk to you about the guidelines and
what we need to do still to get them accepted. Please do this before you submit
more packages, as it seems there are a number of trolls here that will attack
you for trying to help.
Sure. I will send you an email shortly at the hexago.nl address.
(In reply to comment #3)
> Are these review requests going to be more drive-by submissions like the Haskell
> ones you recently submitted, or do you plan to respond to bugzilla comments from
> potential reviewers this time?
(In reply to comment #4)
> I don't understand where you guys got the label of "drive-by" submissions.
The phrase was used in Bug #451413, one of your original Haskell submissions, when it appeared that you were just dumping spec files into bugzilla and (more importantly) not responding to any of the comments, specifically the requests to stop making further submissions until the systematic issues with the existing ones were addressed, this saving everyone a lot of work.
I'm happy to see that you're now responding to bugzilla comments and I've no doubt that you have a lot to offer to Fedora. However, it would be best for everybody concerned (both you and anybody reviewing your packages) if you were to follow the documented procedures (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join), as Yaakov suggested.
I wanted to bump up the version of dbmail, so I'm waiting on this package. Are you still working towards becoming a fedora contributor?
No response from submitter - marking as duplicate of the package I'm submitting.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 474044 ***