owners.list not entirely right

Thorsten Leemhuis fedora at leemhuis.info
Tue Oct 14 21:11:09 CEST 2008

On 14.10.2008 20:56, Julian Sikorski wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis pisze:
>> On 14.10.2008 11:57, Xavier Lamien wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Julian Sikorski <belegdol at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I skimmed through owners.list for my packages and it seems the setup is
>>>> not entirely right. Since the packages I maintain in nonfree are also
>>>> comaintained by Chris Stone, I believe for qmc2 and sdlmame* he should
>>>> be added to initialcc, and in the case where Chris is the primary
>>>> maintainer (sdlmess), I should be.
>>>> Could you please also have a look at the cvs acls (if these aren't the
>>>> same). A while ago Thorsten rebuilt sdlmame due to some buildsys issues,
>>>> and I did not get any mail regarding cvs commit.
>>> Co-maintainers are registered in cvs acls from CVS admin requested
>>> (cvs will do its job to mail maintainer and co-maintainer).
>>> initalcc is something else where anybody could request to be added to
>>> track changes in cvs.
>> /me wonders if that's supposed to be read as "Julian, please file a
>> proper cvs change request in bugzilla"
>>> I'll have a look on sdlmame
>> No need to afaics -- I just queued the build with the old tag (and hence
>> did not commit anything to cvs), as the older build had never left the
>> buildsys.
> I don't mean requeueing

Ohh, sorry, I got confused then with the recent buildsys trouble from a 
few days ago.

 > If that's
> reasonable, I could file cvs admin requests for all appropriate
> packages, so that the acls could be checked.

I got the impression that Xavier prefers it that way, hence I leave the 
answer to him.


More information about the rpmfusion-developers mailing list