Bug 758448 - Review Request: perl-Config-Grammar (for EPEL) - Grammar-based, user-friendly config parser
Summary: Review Request: perl-Config-Grammar (for EPEL) - Grammar-based, user-friendly...
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 461565
Alias: None
Product: Fedora EPEL
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: el6
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-11-29 20:16 UTC by Mick Weiss
Modified: 2011-12-01 21:53 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

(edit)
Clone Of:
(edit)
Last Closed: 2011-12-01 21:53:41 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Mick Weiss 2011-11-29 20:16:11 UTC
Spec URL: http://mickweiss.com/fedora/rpmbuild/SPECS/perl-Config-Grammar.spec
SRPM URL: http://mickweiss.com/fedora/rpmbuild/SRPMS/perl-Config-Grammar-1.10-5.el6.src.rpm
Description: Grammar-based, user-friendly config parser

This is the same package that is packaged for Fedora (but not in EPEL).

terjeros (the maintainer for perl-Config-Grammar) said: "I don't maintain EPEL packages,sorry."

This is where my co-maintainer (Edmund Wong) and myself are jumping in.

Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2011-11-30 02:24:06 UTC
It is not necessary to open a review ticket for this package.  You just need to request EL branches for it, and generally you just do that in the original review ticket.

Comment 2 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2011-11-30 15:29:08 UTC
Mick isn't yet in packager so it does pose a problem as to how he's going to show his knowledge to become an epel maintainer.   A new review request is suboptimal but I don't know of a better way either.

Comment 3 Mick Weiss 2011-11-30 16:57:30 UTC
I posted this bug because two people from #fedora-devel (or #epel, I forget) pointed me here and specifically told me to open a bug.

This can't be the first time that this has happened (package not in EPEL, maintainer doesn't want anything to do w/ EPEL, and a nm wants to see those packages in EPEL). What is the recommended procedure? Can someone write something in the wiki or point me to where it is documented?

If the recommended thing is to just stay away and let an experienced EPEL packager handle this - then by all means. Please do that.

I'm not as interested in becoming a packager as I am just getting these things in EPEL (smokeping and these two cpan module dependencies). If that can't be done, then that is fine (I have packages built for my platform). I just figured that someone else might benefit.

I do feel a bit lost - what would you like me to do exactly?

Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2011-12-01 18:23:47 UTC
Well, first off I had no idea that Mick was not a packager; this ticket doesn't include that information.  (Review procedures indicate that you should at least block the FE-NEEDSPONSOR tracking bug.)

As for the issue at hand, I think this is something the EPEL folks need to work out.  As a sponsor, simply opening a bunch of reviews for packages which are already in the distribution and already meet the packaging guidelines doesn't really show much understanding of the process, since there's no real work shown.  And I guess the whole "become a comaintainer" path doesn't work because the existing maintainer has no interest in EPEL and Mick doesn't appear to have any interest in Fedora.

And in the end, were I one of the folks interested in EPEL I think I'd want the procedure to be more stringent, given both the level of "important machine" penetration and their difficult position with regards to support and upgrades (i.e. being responsible for an EPEL release for way, way longer than a Fedora maintainer has to care about a release).

Yes, it's a mess.  In the end what you need is a sponsor, and all of our procedures around that are based simply on getting enough information out there so that sponsors can make a reasonable decision.  The situation at hand doesn't really present many opportunities for us to make that decision.  So I don't know.

Comment 5 Mick Weiss 2011-12-01 19:20:45 UTC
First off, I'd like to apologise for the tone of my last comment but I think that you can understand my frustrations. 

Remember one thing, at the end of the day: I'm just trying to help. It is just that this is more difficult than I originally thought it would be. (not from the technical side)

"opening a bunch of reviews for packages which are already in the distribution and already meet the packaging guidelines doesn't really show much understanding of the process"

Yes, I am new to this process. That is why I asked. I simply went with what I was told to do by two other developers.

I'd be curious to know though, what exactly is "the process"? I know that (according to you) it was a mistake to open a ticket. What would have been the best course of action? I asked before regarding a pointer to a wiki entry that I might have missed while reading the docs.

"Mick doesn't appear to have any interest in Fedora."

I honestly hope that this never gets taken out of context. :)
To clarify: I <3 Fedora
But this is an issue about 3 packages that I'd like to see in EPEL (which has nothing to do with Fedora or even packaging for Fedora) ;)

"I don't know."

That puts us both in the same boat.

I have a mentor now, so I hope that he can shed some light on this. He will most likely be commenting on this bug later on today.

Comment 6 Mick Weiss 2011-12-01 21:53:41 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 461565 ***


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.