https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1101521 --- Comment #17 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Lubomir Rintel from comment #13) > (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #12) > > (In reply to Lubomir Rintel from comment #10) > That said, this is solemnly packager's responsibility. No. One of the basic prerequisites of a package to be packaged for Fedora is "function". It's one of the core purposes of a review to asure this. > If he's able to cope > with the issues (and it seems to me he is) I can't judge - The packager is a new-comer. He may-be, he may-be not. > (would it be submitted for the review if it didn't?) We have seen a lot of low qualtity junk going into Fedora, just because "somebody wanted it", because a reviewer and a submitter were playing review ping-pong, or because reviewers were working carelessly. > > Openly said, I would not have approved this package because of the code > > quality. > > Thanks for sharing your attitude, but this would be just you making up > guidelines. I'm positive that if someone challenged your decision given the > relevance of your reasoning it would be overturned. OK, you leave me no joice but to file bugs against this package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review