https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273579 --- Comment #14 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #13) > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #12) > > (In reply to Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) from comment #11) > > > I'm happy to continue the review if another reviewer comes along, > > I don't understand this sentence. Raphael said that he can review the > > package in comment #8. If he cannot do it, I'm sure that somebody else (e.g. > > me) would step up. > > Oh, he dropped the review after I asked his opinion about the build system > change in comment 9 which I took as an indication that he agreed with me > putting off the package (He isn't the assignee any more, and he isn't in the > CC list either) :) Was he ever? I only see comment #8 from him. Anyway, like I said, I can review the package. > > > but I do > > > think a re-review will be in order (even if unofficially) if the build > > > system and change. > > Nah, the build system is not visible in the binary package. As long as it > > builds nobody cares (except the maintainer of course). > > That is what I meant - when a new build system comes, the entire package has > to be effectively redone, and nest, as you'll see from the spec, isn't the > simplest of packages. Totally a maintainers burden, yes, but I'm going to be > the maintainer ;) True. I doesn't seem so bad to me (about normal for an mpi package in fact :)), but of course I can't and don't want to push you. > > > Is the plan to get all the neuroscience packages into Fedora by F24, though > > > - or can we have a "group copr" thing running and transition packages over > > > as they pass review? > > > > I don't think there's a plan to get "all" neuroscience packages into Fedora, > > there's probably too many to even consider that. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NeuroFedora doesn't have a specific > > list. New packages can be added at any time, and there's quite a bit of time > > before Fedora 24 release (2016-05-17). I don't know about any plans to have > > a group copr. I see coprs as a good mechanism to provide alternative > > versions of already packaged software, or often updated software, or things > > which are inappropriate for main Fedora for other reasons. I don't think > > nest or other science related software falls into any of those categories, > > and making a "detour" through copr would be mostly a waste of time. > > I think the list is somewhere on a google spreadsheet. I don't have the link > handy at the moment. I wasn't aware of that. I know there's http://taiga.fedorainfracloud.org/project/ignatenkobrain-neurofedora/kanban but probably not everything is on there. > Coprs are also a good mechanism for packages that build and are functional > but are not packaged well enough to pass a formal review yet (outer ring in > fedora.next and all that), which is exactly what the nest package is at the > moment. In my experience, it's quite easy for coprs to get obsolete. If the package is in Fedora proper, than at least it will be regularly rebuilt, sometimes a provenpackager will do a drive-by fix of some small issue, and users can report issues in bugzilla, crashes are colleted. I think coprs are great for development, or for a small focuses group of users, but after using them for a while, I'm starting to see downsides of using them as a mechanism for distributing software to a diverse group of users, over long time. > Anyway, I'm happy to continue the review if someone takes it up. I'll update > the spec with Raphael's comments later this week. I already updated the copr > package to 2.10 which came out recently. I need to work on the python3 bit > etc. Great! Let's see if Raphael wants to pick up the review. If not, I'll take it. -- 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