Review Request: fftw3, cln, GiNaC, octave-forge

[Quentin Spencer]

Michael Schwendt wrote:

>On Mon, 02 May 2005 09:48:33 -0500, Quentin Spencer wrote:
>  
>
>>>Who was the one who volunteered to review and approve your packages?
>>>Also, where are "octave" and "octave-devel"? They have been removed from
>>>Fedora Core.
>>>      
>>>
>>Spot was my original sponsor, who did look at my packages before I 
>>checked them into CVS. Several people responded to my initial CVS 
>>checkins, and I have corrected all of the problems that came up. Does 
>>that constitute approval or does there need to be a final review?
>>    
>>
>"Approval" is when somebody sends an "APPROVED: packagename(s)" message
>to fedora-extras-commits list.
>  
>
I was aware of that, but who has authority to do this? Can I do it, 
based on having corrected all outstanding issues? Or must my sponsor or 
somebody else?  I have followed the discussions about this on the list, 
but I never felt like it was completely clarified.

>>I haven't started working on packaging octave yet because I'm still 
>>working on an FC3 system at the moment. My original plan was to get 
>>these packages added, approved, and built on FC3, and then begin working 
>>on building octave for FC4.
>>    
>>
>
>Then you should request an FC-3 branch for your packages first.
>This is done here  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/CVSSyncNeeded
>and is explained in the Fedora Extras CVS FAQ, too.
>  
>
I was under the impression that I had to get the package approved first 
(this question is not address in either of those places). If that's not 
the case, I'll go ahead and request a branch.

>>From the octave mailing lists I understand 
>>this could be a bit of an undertaking with the move from g77 to 
>>gfortran. Anyway, this was a perfectly reasonable plan back in February 
>>when I first asked for sponsorship, but obviously the process has taken 
>>much longer than planned. Should I work on building octave for FC4 
>>before I get any of these approved?
>>    
>>
>
>IMHO, I would really make sure there is an upgrade path to FC4 for your
>packages. If you released packages only for FC3 and [late in the FC4
>development cycle] ran into problems with getting them to build/work on
>FC4, that would not be a good situation. FC4 should take precedence.
>  
>
Of course. Like I said, the original intention was for this to be done 
long before "late in the FC4 development cycle". Hopefully I'll get to 
work on packaging octave soon.

-Quentin