[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: snort ?

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 10:56:56 -0600, Daniel Wittenberg wrote:

> >  - A candidate source rpm which is considered "ready",
> >  - which is roughly the same quality as other packages in Fedora
> >    Extras,
> >  - and a sponsor who would serve as a proxy to CVS for updates
> >    until Fedora Extras is ready to accept project contributors
> >    and create accounts for them.
> > 
> > Revised package submission and QA policies for Fedora Extras are not known
> > yet. So, fedora.us documents should be taken as a good guideline.
> I'm not bitching here, so don't take this wrong, I'm merely curious, but
> if the submission and QA policies aren't set doesn't that make it hard
> to say the RPM is "ready", since there are no guidelines to follow for
> that? 

We've been following fedora.us guidelines for a long time. So one cannot
say there would be no guidelines. Adhering to those guidelines would get
rid of the redundant and dangerous explicit dependencies in your package
(libpcap, pcre e.g.), for instance.

Also, with "ready" I mean that an rpmbuild rebuild creates the binary
packages as intended. The latest src.rpm you linked now still does not do
that, but requires lots of manual switches. Other comments posted before.
The package would benefit from a cleanup.

Btw, I'm perfectly fine if somebody else wants to sponsor this package
now or when it's considered ready. I find enough packages to review in
the fedora.us queue.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]