Problems with core review

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 10:04 -0800, Christopher Stone wrote:
> 1) php-pear has a major upgrade (1.5.0) and the current version is
> 1.4.11 in cvs.  The 1.5.0 upgrade is going to bring on significant
> changes.  I am asking him to make these significant changes _before_ I
> do a formal review.  However, he insists that I must do my review on
> the version that is currently in CVS.
> 
If F7 is going to include 1.5.x, then this is a reasonable request.
jorton, could you please upgrade or tell us why you won't upgrade now?

> 2) Joe refuses to make benign trivial changes to the spec file.  These
> are changes that were suggested by members of the packaging committee,
> for example f13 suggested to use %{SOURCEx} notation when installing
> sources instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR.  Joe refuses to make simple
> changes like this and would rather bring the issues back up with the
> packaging committee.  I think he feels wasting the committe's time is
> more important than ten seconds of his time to make the change.
> 
According to the review bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226295
there are several of these trivial changes which are not listed in the
Package guidelines.  If they aren't in the Packaging Guidelines the
reviewer and the maintainer can either work out what the best solution
is, write a proposal for the Packaging Committee to discuss, or agree to
disagree (in which case the package will need a new reviewer.)

If they are in the Packaging Guidelines, then the issue needs to be
addressed or a proposal needs to be sent to the Packaging Committee
detailing how and why the guidelines should be changed.

> 3) There is a major change that needs to be made with php-pear
> package.  Essentially the pear installer needs to be included as a sub
> package of the main php package.  This is technically required for the
> new 1.5.0 upgrade in order to prevent clashing with existing packages.
>  The current method Joe uses lumps a ton of packages together into a
> single package using a bootstrapping method which is not even
> required.  His excuse for not making the change is because he thinks
> the pear installer needs to be updated outside of php which is not the
> case.  The pear installer is included as part of php from upstream and
> they do that for a reason.
> 
It looks like this was resolved in the bug report.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070207/1bca1068/attachment.sig>