On 9. 10. 2013 at 17:31:38, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> Quoting tim.laurid...@gmail.com (2013-10-09 16:48:31)
>
> > the original urlgrabber maintainer left long time ago, but the yum team
> > adopted the code, because it was critical to yum, so this is cause why
> > there has been no upstream re
Quoting tim.laurid...@gmail.com (2013-10-09 16:48:31)
> the original urlgrabber maintainer left long time ago, but the yum team
> adopted the code, because it was critical to yum, so this is cause why
> there has been no upstream release.
> yum shold make upstream releases in more frequently, inste
the original urlgrabber maintainer left long time ago, but the yum team
adopted the code, because it was critical to yum, so this is cause why
there has been no upstream release.
yum shold make upstream releases in more frequently, instead of adding very
large patches to latest git HEAD.
yum-utils
On 8. 10. 2013 at 19:06:21, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> I was looking for examples of nice packages for upcoming packaging workshop
> we are doing in Brno. I made the terrible mistake of doing fedpkg clone
> python-urlgrabber.
>
> If there was some normal packaging issue I'd most likely just fil
Hi,
Thank you for sharing that sad issue :(
i wish that we could review regularly all packages but that's obviously not
feasible.
What is doable:
* automated review of packages: git hooks ? regular mass fedora-review
checks ? triggering a mail to a list ? our scm watchdogs do a great job at
spotti
I was looking for examples of nice packages for upcoming packaging workshop we
are doing in Brno. I made the terrible mistake of doing fedpkg clone
python-urlgrabber.
If there was some normal packaging issue I'd most likely just file a bug in
bugzilla, but this made my blood boil. This is one of o
