On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 17:49 -0400, Michael DeHaan wrote: > Given no other replies to this commentary, I think we're ok on the > PyYaml 3000 front (what to do about syck-python is another issue, and > I'm willing to let it slide if a good working alternative can get out > there). > > I do have people interested in reviewing this (Toshio, you are welcome > to as well), but I lack a potential sponsor for my first package. Can > anyone jump on board and help me out? The module itself was already > built with distutils, so the spec only moves it into a more reasonable > namespace and numbering scheme. > If you put together a good package, I'll sponsor you. I don't have much time right now (I've promised to review python-ctypes and I have to get an upstream release of qa-assistant out the door.) If someone else wants to do an initial review to make sure the package conforms to the Fedora Guidelines and runs okay I can do a final review for sponsorship much quicker. It would also be nice if you reviewed one or two packages before being sponsored. This helps in two ways: 1) it shows that you've read and understand the packaging guidelines. 2) it's good packaging karma (someone has to review your package, you review someone else's) > Here's the bugzilla: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190493 Looks like you're keeping up to date with upstream which is good. I'll leave notes in the bug. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
