On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 16:59 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: > On 2012-11-07 16:53, tim.lauridsen@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx > > > > Besides that, I can just agree with Tim. The oldest package > > was reviewed less than a year ago, the two others last > > summer. Requiring a new review is, well, somewhat formal. > > > > That said, it should be easy to review these to resolve this > > issue. If you just make some new review requests, linking > > to the previous review I'll guess this could be handled > > without to much problems. > > I don't see anywhere > > in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process > > > > That a new review is needed, > It might be that you are right, dunno, this is just so weird. My point > is just that three simple reviews might be less work than to discuss > this until there is a Proper Solution. This is what you are looking for: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Claiming_Ownership_of_a_Deprecated_Package especially: Deprecated packages require re-review if they are deprecated for more than two weeks or if there is no previous review of the package. Submit a review request (a new bugzilla ticket) and have the package approved by a reviewer as if it were new to Fedora. See the package review process for more information. Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
