Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871092 --- Comment #24 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #21) > The longer version is: This package review has developed into a wrong > direction. Even if there are "two new packager candidates", there are also > "two sponsors", who should try to be more helpful. While I agree the review has gone south, I don't think this is the sponsors' fault. Other than the bad advice to remove the runtime Requires I see nothing wrong. On the contrary, there was a lot of helpful hints, but unfortunately the package submitter did not follow all of them (e.g. to increase the release with every new package). I think the main problem is the software that is packaged here. IHMO it's not anywhere near inclusion in Fedora: It violates the FHS (at least at the beginning it was), hardcodes paths and has no proper build system. Not necessarily the easiest thing to package, especially for new contributors. > Part of the initial guidance should have been to point at the > ReviewGuidelines page - > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines I *did* advise Benedikt to use the checklist. > - and to introduce the new packagers to "rpmlint" We linked the Packaging Guidelines on various occasions and rpm is part of these guidelines. It was already used in this review, so I find it hard to believe our new contributors are not aware of it. Anyway, I am too busy ATM to take care of this review or to sponsor Antonio. But I think he already learned a lot and the package has improved much. I'd appreciate if somebody else can take over and continue from here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tbMv4tVgnI&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review