Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xtide - Calculate tide all over the world https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211626 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2006-10-28 05:22 EST ------- (In reply to comment #61) > By the way, I have another question. > I submitted a re-review request as this because it has passed "long" since > xtide got dead, and actually it became to be clear that many changes are > needed as we discussed on this bug. Also many packages from the early days of fedora extras, and from the days when fedora core package entered in extras without a review don't attain the same level of quality than more recently reviewed packages. (and of course the guidelines change over time). > However in general is there any agreement when we should submit re-review > requests for orphaned/dead packages? I cannot see any reference on > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/OrphanedPackages . I remember that being evoked and I think the rule was that if the package was marked as dead in a previous release, (it is pretty tight here since previous release is fc5) it needed a rereview. > ( again I comment that for xtide I really think that re-review was > needed ) Indeed! I guess that a full security audit of xttpd would be nice, however it would go beyond a review. If Michael hasn't said anything on monday, you can import it on that day. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review