[Fedora-packaging] package review template

[Jon Ciesla]

> On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 12:49:17PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
>>
>> Oh, how I hate such vague accusations. Ralf! Please tell us exactly who
>> you're referring to and what *exactly* makes you think they have no
>> clue.
>
> I have the same feeling than Ralf, some reviewer just do superficial
> reviewing without really looking at the relevant details. I won't tell
> names. I also think that it was much less the case in the past, say,
> roughly in the extras days.

Are there any specific deficiencies you find particularly troubling?  I
suppose you can't really post links if you don't want to name names, but
could you characterize something in general terms?

Not looking to start a flamewar or witchhunt, just trying to make sure I
understand the problem.

> That being said, this is not really relevant to the issue here, I mean,
> template or not this issue will remain. And I think that I was in the
> category of the people who 'have no clue' when I did my first
> packages...
>
> Maybe the sponsor should look over sponsoree shoulder for some time
> until the packager is knowledgable enough about packaging that he can
> do reviews with an understanding of what he is doing, and not applying
> some cookbook recipes (like look at rpmlint and it's done).
>
> This is not an easy issue, though, especially since many veteran
> packagers from the beginning of fedora extras don't seem to show a lot
> of activity these days in the reviews.
>
> --
> Pat
>
> --
> Fedora-packaging mailing list
> Fedora-packaging at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
>


-- 
novus ordo absurdum