On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 13:47 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Jonathan Dieter (jdieter@xxxxxxxxx) said: >> >> On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 18:24 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: >> >> > Package numptyphysics (fails to build) >> >> >> >> I've updated this to build and posted at >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843250 >> >> >> >> If a package FTBFS and the current maintainer doesn't fix it, will we >> >> have a chance to take ownership of it before it gets blocked? >> > >> > I'd suggest finding a willing provenpackager to help you fix it >> > if you can't get the maintainer to apply or approve a comaintainership >> > request. >> >> I'm a PP and I've helped with several of Lubo's pacakges in the past. >> I'm willing to help with this if you like. > > Just for the record - Jon went ahead and applied Jonathan's patch, but > it did not correctly follow the pre-release naming guidelines: D'oh! Sorry, I was blinded by the BuildRequires*. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages > > I've gone ahead and pushed a further build which simply corrects this. > The incorrect NEVR that Jonathan's patch included was > 0.1.git.20120726.a22cde2%{?dist} . The date is supposed to come before > 'git', and there are not supposed to be periods between 'git', > '20120726' and 'a22cde2'. I corrected these errors and bumped the rev, > so the new build uses a NEVR of 0.2.20120726gita22cde2%{?dist} . > > (FWIW, I'm not sure the guidelines are appropriate for Modern Times; the > date of checkout was only really the most important thing back in the > days of CVS, where there was really no such thing as a canonical > revision for the entire project. These days every modern RCS, as far as > I'm aware, includes the notion of a canonical revision - yet we still > *require* the date and make it *optional* to include a specific revision > ID, even though the revision ID is clearly more accurate and specific > than a date. Maybe we ought to make the revision the key thing to > include, and make the date optional, except in the special case of the > few projects still using CVS. Would the packaging committee be > interested in a proposal? Am I wrong? The date is useful for making it > immediately obvious how up-to-date a package is, I guess, but it has no > really key function for differentiating builds any more.) > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora > http://www.happyassassin.net > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel *strung up like a deuce and somethingsomething in the night. . . -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------------ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
