On 2/6/07, Warren Togami <wtogami@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> 2) Core package owners may not be very familiar with the packaging
> guidelines, or why they are actually there. Some may even think it's
> just some level of bureaucracy/extra burden (in short, not very
> exciting).
They need to just deal with it. If they haven't heard about the
packaging guidelines by now, they are not doing their job properly and
they need some education.
/me prepares the cluebat.
Can you please whammy Joe Orton with it? There are several problems
I've had with this person.
1) php-pear has a major upgrade (1.5.0) and the current version is
1.4.11 in cvs. The 1.5.0 upgrade is going to bring on significant
changes. I am asking him to make these significant changes _before_ I
do a formal review. However, he insists that I must do my review on
the version that is currently in CVS.
2) Joe refuses to make benign trivial changes to the spec file. These
are changes that were suggested by members of the packaging committee,
for example f13 suggested to use %{SOURCEx} notation when installing
sources instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR. Joe refuses to make simple
changes like this and would rather bring the issues back up with the
packaging committee. I think he feels wasting the committe's time is
more important than ten seconds of his time to make the change.
3) There is a major change that needs to be made with php-pear
package. Essentially the pear installer needs to be included as a sub
package of the main php package. This is technically required for the
new 1.5.0 upgrade in order to prevent clashing with existing packages.
The current method Joe uses lumps a ton of packages together into a
single package using a bootstrapping method which is not even
required. His excuse for not making the change is because he thinks
the pear installer needs to be updated outside of php which is not the
case. The pear installer is included as part of php from upstream and
they do that for a reason.
I have to say Joe has been the most stubbon and diffucult packager I
have ever had to deal with as a reviewer, and I have reviewed over
fifty packages. I sure hope not all core packagers are this way!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
