6:58 p.m.
Hi all!
I have submitted a review request for zfs-fuse at
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85
It should be a very easy review. Anybody got time? Please?
This is my first RPMFusion package.
Uwe Kubosch
Norway
8:54 a.m.
Hi!
On 26.10.2008 19:58, Uwe Kubosch wrote:
I have submitted a review request for zfs-fuse at
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85
Thx for submitting!
It should be a very easy review. Anybody got time? Please?
There are a few other packages that awaiting review:
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=2&hide_resol...
Maybe you could review one of those and the other submitter reviews your
package (aka "exchange reviews"). That afaics is the best way to quickly
get someone to review your package.
CU
knurd
8:58 a.m.
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Hi!
On 26.10.2008 19:58, Uwe Kubosch wrote:
>
> I have submitted a review request for zfs-fuse at
> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85
Thx for submitting!
For the record, this is also submitted to Fedora. My original odds for
fuse-zfs making it into Fedora were originally "poor", but I recently
upgraded them to "good" after talking to Simon Phipps (Sun Open Source
Chief Officer). However this may still take a while to get past the Red
Hat Legal block...
-denis
9:42 a.m.
2008/10/27 Denis Leroy <denis(a)poolshark.org>:
For the record, this is also submitted to Fedora. My original odds
for
fuse-zfs making it into Fedora were originally "poor", but I recently
upgraded them to "good" after talking to Simon Phipps (Sun Open Source Chief
Officer). However this may still take a while to get past the Red Hat Legal
block...
RPM Fusion has a policy of not duplicating Fedora packages and, as you
said, a package review is already pending in Fedora.
Therefore you should ask for a review only if the package will be
rejected from RH Legal.
Please add a note to RPM Fusion BZ.
Thanks.
Bye,
Andrea.
9:55 a.m.
Just a note: I asked Uwe to submit the package for RPM Fusion (after he
added it to the wishlist), as back then (a week or two ago) it afaics
looked highly unlikely that zfs-fuse will make it into Fedora.
Also note that Uwe mentioned the Fedora review request in his RPM Fusion
bugzilla review request.
On 27.10.2008 10:42, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
2008/10/27 Denis Leroy <denis(a)poolshark.org>:
> For the record, this is also submitted to Fedora. My original odds for
> fuse-zfs making it into Fedora were originally "poor", but I recently
> upgraded them to "good" after talking to Simon Phipps (Sun Open Source
Chief
> Officer). However this may still take a while to get past the Red Hat Legal
> block...
RPM Fusion has a policy of not duplicating Fedora packages and, as you
said, a package review is already pending in Fedora.
Which is also from Uwe ;-)
Therefore you should ask for a review only if the package will be
rejected from RH Legal.
I totally disagree; we had situations where it took months to get the
legal status in Fedora resolved. RPM Fusion for such timeframes imho is
a acceptable home for a package. But sure, if it looks like this will be
resolved quicker (like it does now) then it makes no sense to get it
into RPM FUsion.
CU
knurd
10:10 a.m.
2008/10/27 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>:
Also note that Uwe mentioned the Fedora review request in his RPM
Fusion
bugzilla review request.
My fault. Sorry, I should have read RPM Fusion BZ and not assuming things.
> Therefore you should ask for a review only if the package will
be
> rejected from RH Legal.
I totally disagree; we had situations where it took months to get the legal
status in Fedora resolved. RPM Fusion for such timeframes imho is a
acceptable home for a package. But sure, if it looks like this will be
resolved quicker (like it does now) then it makes no sense to get it into
RPM FUsion.
Usually RH Legal is quite fast in responding and usually denying acceptance.
Therefore I agree with Thorsten. If Legal status is cleared quickly
there is no need to act here in RPM Fusion. Otherwise review can go
on.
IMHO next time, it would be advisable to have a "troubled" package to
be submitted here first and then to Fedora for a Legal check. In this
way a package submitted to Fedora should also be reviewed more
quickly.
Sorry for lot of noise.
Bye,
Andrea.
10:23 a.m.
On 27.10.2008 11:10, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
[...]
IMHO next time, it would be advisable to have a "troubled" package to
be submitted here first and then to Fedora for a Legal check. In this
way a package submitted to Fedora should also be reviewed more
quickly.
Well, that is double work for a lot of people (reviews, branch creation,
import, initial builds and some other things ned to be done in both
Fedora and RPM Fusion). Hence I'd say the way Uwe took was the right one
-- go to Fedora, if it looks unlikely there or if it looks like the
legal clarification might take months then go to RPM Fusion in parallel.
CU
knurd
10:44 a.m.
2008/10/27 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>:
Well, that is double work for a lot of people (reviews, branch
creation,
import, initial builds and some other things ned to be done in both Fedora
and RPM Fusion). Hence I'd say the way Uwe took was the right one -- go to
Fedora, if it looks unlikely there or if it looks like the legal
clarification might take months then go to RPM Fusion in parallel.
I tried to address a broader problem than the particular one with
zfs-fuse. For example, someone submitted VisualBoyAdvance for review
in Fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466658
IMHO this has zero probability to be accepted in Fedora.
So I think that having a review here would have been the right thing
to do and in the interest of the final user. Then, if Legal agrees
that package is fine for inclusion in Fedora, the original RPM Fusion
reviewer can re-review it quickly in Fedora. Cases like this already
happened in Dribble past and where handled this way without any
trouble.
Bye,
Andrea.
10:53 a.m.
On 27.10.2008 11:44, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
2008/10/27 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>:
> Well, that is double work for a lot of people (reviews, branch creation,
> import, initial builds and some other things ned to be done in both Fedora
> and RPM Fusion). Hence I'd say the way Uwe took was the right one -- go to
> Fedora, if it looks unlikely there or if it looks like the legal
> clarification might take months then go to RPM Fusion in parallel.
I tried to address a broader problem than the particular one with
zfs-fuse. For example, someone submitted VisualBoyAdvance for review
in Fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466658
IMHO this has zero probability to be accepted in Fedora.
So I think that having a review here would have been the right thing
to do and in the interest of the final user. Then, if Legal agrees
that package is fine for inclusion in Fedora, the original RPM Fusion
reviewer can re-review it quickly in Fedora. Cases like this already
happened in Dribble past and where handled this way without any
trouble.
Mail communication is fun sometimes :-) We are afaics in full agreement
(note the "if it looks unlikely (to go in) there" [in Fedora] above)
;-)
CU
knurd
5679
days inactive
5680
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
8 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Andrea Musuruane -
Denis Leroy -
Thorsten Leemhuis -
Uwe Kubosch