Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529496 --- Comment #18 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-12 10:50:46 EST --- No reviewer will approve a src.rpm that gives 404 Not Found already for the source tarball. And with a manual download by visiting the web page, the result is: $ md5sum libmtag-0.3.2-1.fc11.src/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz 6c57340a60a82f2732d5b55c78c994f0 libmtag-0.3.2-1.fc11.src/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz $ md5sum ~/Downloads/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz 7374002ed89009f5f932da4494acff0e /home/qa/Downloads/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz That's something you do need to fix, because so far it doesn't demonstrate that you know your stuff. The other issues pointed out in comment 2 are still true, too. If you cannot proceed without releasing a new tarball upstream first, well, then consider doing that release. Where exactly are your difficulties in preparing an updated spec and src.rpm that would pass review? AFAIK, 0.3.2 has been released by you in Nov 2009 already. It's spelled out in the guide: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Make_a_Package | * Make sure that your package meets the Packaging Guidelines | and PackageNamingGuidelines . | | * Be aware of Forbidden Items and Package Review Guidelines | (they will be used during the package review). Effectively, the person who wants to join the package collection maintainers (aka the "packager" group in the Fedora Account System) is expected to do a little bit of home work prior to and during the review process. The detailed documentation for the Review Process explicitly explains that it may be necessary to provide an updated spec file and src.rpm after issues have been pointed out: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process > As a good sponsor you *should* leave aside your personal agendas and > follow Fedora's guidelines. Which ones are that? These? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_sponsor_responsibilities What you've been given in this ticket so far by two people is general guidance, especially since you are upstream *and* the package submitter. [Normally, the packager would communicate with upstream and forward flaws found during review.] A more interesting read is this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored#Sponsorship_model It explains what is expected from you at a technical level. [Applying the LGPL] > * The text says 'library', and I often have to change it to 'program' > * If the FSF changes their address (again), all the notices [snip] That's splitting-hairs again. The tarball in the src.rpm, which is presented for review, does not mention the licensing at all. That's the worst-case. You were pointed at Fedora's guidelines about that. You refused to include the license terms in the tarball, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text and you refused to acknowledge the licensing in the source files (three files only at present). However, in 0.3.2 upstream tarball, without mentioning it here, you added a one-line licensing header to the source files nevertheless. Some sort of compromise. That's not the best you could have done, but it's a beginning. [compiler warnings] > WTF are you talking about? About strange/superfluous comments that only confuse matters. One can really get lost in all your excuses, such as the one about too much noise in compiler output. You can fill pages with ramblings about stuff you don't like to do, and at the end still all that will be important is to provide a src.rpm that actually fixes issues and will pass review. > I didn't know as a Contributor I was supposed to join as maintainer. Then that would have been a chance to ask here or in relevant places. Several web pages end at the same "Join" page for package maintainers: http://join.fedoraproject.org -> http://fedoraproject.org/join-fedora --> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join And another page explains the details, such as updating a src.rpm with fixes during review: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Contributor > Now, if you do want me to comment on the lack of documentation > of the 'tools' package, I would rather remove it. That would be an option. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review