>>>>> "DT" == David Timms <dtimms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: DT> Could I get some feedback on whether people feel it is appropriate DT> for a person wanting to get sponsored for packaging to be DT> providing non-official reviews on any random package ? That's how it's intended to work. Of course, "random" is up to you; you can choose the packages you want to review. DT> Can I just "follow da rulez", pointing out the diversions, so that DT> the packaging fits Fedora ? [and state that I have no knowledge DT> of the software being package ?] Well, that's what I do. It's nice if you can review software you're interested in or understand but obviously it can't always work that way if some of the more obscure packages are ever going to get reviewed. DT> Can a package submitter submit software written by themselves ? Yes. DT> Even if they can't, can't a patch I/someone add to a package do DT> ~anything~ to a users system ? Yes. Which is the reason we require all of this sponsorship process. DT> For software that is open but may be only targeted for a narrow DT> audience, or that has not had updates for some years, will a DT> package be automatically rejected ? No; we have plenty of software like that. Numerical libraries often fall into that category. Of course, the maintainer should consider the security implications of such software first, because they're on the hook for fixing issues. - J< -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
