On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 05:53:13 -0600, Ranjan Maitra wrote: > Some time ago, circa May 2015, there was a long thread called "Biting the Bullet" [1] where some others complained about the lack of pdftk on F21 and later. (This complaint also manifested itself sometime later.) > > In response, and with both general and more specific help from those more experienced, I was able to put together an RPM for pdf-stapler as an alternative to pdftk. I submitted to a black hole called Fedora packaging where there was some churn, some more suggestions (a few contradicting the other) which I duly implemented but no one actually able to move the process forward. However, it sits here: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234210 No drama, please. So many words in this mail of yours. The time could have been spent better on swapping reviews, reading the process documentation and fixing the bugzilla tickets, too. Waiting passively leads to something seldomly. The ticket has not even been visible in the needsponsor queue because the fedora-review flag set to '?' means there is a reviewer working on it. > unassigned. It has passed through rpmlint (no errors, only a few nonsensical spelling warnings) and whatever else it was supposed to pass as per packaging guidelines. So also is the case of sylfilter which I packaged separately, and no one has even bothered to comment on: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685 Here you could also have added the needsponsor flag as per the process guide. The various review queues are quite crowded: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ What else? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
