redeclipse needs co-maintainers
Hi, The current maintainer has requested[1] that he has no time to work on redeclipse package and requested if any co-maintainers can help this package. Can someone interested in this game package, 9co-maintain this package? Regards, Parag [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204600#c8 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: redeclipse needs co-maintainers
On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 23:34:04 +0530 Parag Nemade <panem...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > >The current maintainer has requested[1] that he has no time to work > on redeclipse package and requested if any co-maintainers can help > this package. > Can someone interested in this game package, 9co-maintain this package? > > Regards, > Parag > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204600#c8 > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org as I understand it unless there is an accompanying game has been removed from fedora . I can't be the maintainer cannot build packages and don't know English --- mastaiza :-D Omsk , Russia -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: redeclipse
Redirect to games Mailing List. On Ter, 2015-12-01 at 12:04 +, mastaiza wu wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204600 > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285313 -- Sérgio M. B. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: redeclipse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1204600 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285313 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
redeclipse
game for a long time is not updated. package maintainer does not respond. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: redeclipse: packaging symlinks and directory ownership
On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 16:00 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:25:43PM +0200, Martin Erik Werner wrote:
On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 19:31 +0200, Martin Erik Werner wrote:
Hello,
I have a couple of packaging questions for a new package, the FPS game
redeclipse[0], which are currently in testing[1].
1.
I have three resulting binary packages {redeclipse, redeclipse-server,
redeclipse-data} where redeclipse depends on redeclipse-data as the only
inter-dependency. (Splitting -data into a separate source package is a
future todo item...)
Currently all packages place files in %{_libexecdir}/%{name}/ (client
binary, server binary, and a symlink to the data dir).
In this case, should only the -server and -data packages own this
directory, or would it be more appropriate if all three owned it?
I would lean towards only the -server and -data package owning this due to
the client depending on -data.
2.
I was thinking of moving the symlink from the -data package to the
client (redeclipse) package, which would mean that unless the -data
dependency is installed, there would be a broken symlink, is this
something that's acceptable? Or need symlinks be unbroken within a
single package regardless of dependencies?
As long as the dependency from -client to -data exist, this should be fine.
3.
redeclipse is currently pushed as an update to testing[1] (not in stable
yet), and this version includes the unowned directory
%{_libexecdir}/%{name}/ (which I discovered recently).
What would be my course of action with regards to the f17 update? Should
I abort it and push a new one (and go through the review process?), or
should I let it go and fix this in a subsequent update; how critical are
unowned dirs like this?
I'd abort, build a fixed version, and push that. there's no need for
a re-review for that. For the end user it shouldn't have much effect.
For how serious, here's the Packaging Guideline page that explains the
various issues it can cause:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
-Toshio
Ok, I've unpushed it, moved the symlink and repushed, thanks for the
help :)
(Now I just need to find testers :/)
--
Martin Erik Werner martinerikwer...@gmail.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
redeclipse: packaging symlinks and directory ownership
Hello,
I have a couple of packaging questions for a new package, the FPS game
redeclipse[0], which are currently in testing[1].
1.
I have three resulting binary packages {redeclipse, redeclipse-server,
redeclipse-data} where redeclipse depends on redeclipse-data as the only
inter-dependency. (Splitting -data into a separate source package is a
future todo item...)
Currently all packages place files in %{_libexecdir}/%{name}/ (client
binary, server binary, and a symlink to the data dir).
In this case, should only the -server and -data packages own this
directory, or would it be more appropriate if all three owned it?
2.
I was thinking of moving the symlink from the -data package to the
client (redeclipse) package, which would mean that unless the -data
dependency is installed, there would be a broken symlink, is this
something that's acceptable? Or need symlinks be unbroken within a
single package regardless of dependencies?
3.
redeclipse is currently pushed as an update to testing[1] (not in stable
yet), and this version includes the unowned directory
%{_libexecdir}/%{name}/ (which I discovered recently).
What would be my course of action with regards to the f17 update? Should
I abort it and push a new one (and go through the review process?), or
should I let it go and fix this in a subsequent update; how critical are
unowned dirs like this?
Thanks.
--
Martin Erik Werner martinerikwer...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: redeclipse: packaging symlinks and directory ownership
On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 19:31 +0200, Martin Erik Werner wrote:
Hello,
I have a couple of packaging questions for a new package, the FPS game
redeclipse[0], which are currently in testing[1].
1.
I have three resulting binary packages {redeclipse, redeclipse-server,
redeclipse-data} where redeclipse depends on redeclipse-data as the only
inter-dependency. (Splitting -data into a separate source package is a
future todo item...)
Currently all packages place files in %{_libexecdir}/%{name}/ (client
binary, server binary, and a symlink to the data dir).
In this case, should only the -server and -data packages own this
directory, or would it be more appropriate if all three owned it?
2.
I was thinking of moving the symlink from the -data package to the
client (redeclipse) package, which would mean that unless the -data
dependency is installed, there would be a broken symlink, is this
something that's acceptable? Or need symlinks be unbroken within a
single package regardless of dependencies?
3.
redeclipse is currently pushed as an update to testing[1] (not in stable
yet), and this version includes the unowned directory
%{_libexecdir}/%{name}/ (which I discovered recently).
What would be my course of action with regards to the f17 update? Should
I abort it and push a new one (and go through the review process?), or
should I let it go and fix this in a subsequent update; how critical are
unowned dirs like this?
Thanks.
[0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800930
[1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/redeclipse-1.2-9.fc17
Whoops forgot those :)
--
Martin Erik Werner martinerikwer...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: redeclipse: packaging symlinks and directory ownership
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:25:43PM +0200, Martin Erik Werner wrote:
On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 19:31 +0200, Martin Erik Werner wrote:
Hello,
I have a couple of packaging questions for a new package, the FPS game
redeclipse[0], which are currently in testing[1].
1.
I have three resulting binary packages {redeclipse, redeclipse-server,
redeclipse-data} where redeclipse depends on redeclipse-data as the only
inter-dependency. (Splitting -data into a separate source package is a
future todo item...)
Currently all packages place files in %{_libexecdir}/%{name}/ (client
binary, server binary, and a symlink to the data dir).
In this case, should only the -server and -data packages own this
directory, or would it be more appropriate if all three owned it?
I would lean towards only the -server and -data package owning this due to
the client depending on -data.
2.
I was thinking of moving the symlink from the -data package to the
client (redeclipse) package, which would mean that unless the -data
dependency is installed, there would be a broken symlink, is this
something that's acceptable? Or need symlinks be unbroken within a
single package regardless of dependencies?
As long as the dependency from -client to -data exist, this should be fine.
3.
redeclipse is currently pushed as an update to testing[1] (not in stable
yet), and this version includes the unowned directory
%{_libexecdir}/%{name}/ (which I discovered recently).
What would be my course of action with regards to the f17 update? Should
I abort it and push a new one (and go through the review process?), or
should I let it go and fix this in a subsequent update; how critical are
unowned dirs like this?
I'd abort, build a fixed version, and push that. there's no need for
a re-review for that. For the end user it shouldn't have much effect.
For how serious, here's the Packaging Guideline page that explains the
various issues it can cause:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:UnownedDirectories
-Toshio
pgp4cPzThYW2m.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
