On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 18:26 +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote: > > He got an sponsor right away and became the maintainer of the > > package, > > without changing a line of what I had in csv. > > That's very odd. The guidelines remain the same for all of us. So a > spec > that didn't pass a review the first time should not pass the review > again without changes. Just to clarify, the main issue was the application was an UI app in gtk with plugins. The plugins was distributed as shared library files that were dlopened (in this case using g_lib's g_module_open) and loaded on the main application. The guy reviewing my package, pointed to me the devel package I shiped for the plugins was useless. I tried to explain him what it was for, and told him to remove both plugins and devel files, but got no response. Pretty much all gui packages back in time implemented plugins that way, and shiped the devel package exactly as I did. The guy that later reviewed the other contributor's submission for review, did not saw that as an issue. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=174063 this is the review request. I am not sure there was a guideline blocking the package. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
