Dear Troy and the EPEL Infrastructure Team, Thank you very much for your clear explanation and for your work on EPEL.
I fully understand that there is an active maintainer for the opendmarc package, and I appreciate the effort invested to resolve the dependencies issue in EPEL10. My intention to take over maintenance stems from my role managing servers for government, labor unions, and postal services in Japan, where having official recognition as an EPEL maintainer is necessary for compliance and public certification purposes. If possible, I would like to collaborate as a co-maintainer or contributor to ensure stable packaging and updates. Alternatively, I am also developing other packages that could contribute to EPEL, so I am happy to support the project in other ways if taking over opendmarc is not feasible. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your guidance. Best regards, Akiyoshi Kurita (FAS: redadmin) 2025年6月16日(月) 22:33 Troy Dawson <[email protected]>: > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 5:16 AM Akihito Kurita <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dear EPEL and Fedora Infrastructure team, >> >> I hope this message finds you well. >> >> I am writing to follow up on Bugzilla bug #2344510 regarding the >> opendmarc package. >> >> While I understand this bug has been marked as a duplicate, my >> intention is not just to report the issue but to take over maintenance >> and submit a new build of opendmarc (including the -tools subpackage) >> now that all dependencies are available in EPEL10. >> >> Could you please confirm if I may proceed with taking ownership and >> submitting the new build under my Fedora Account System ID "redadmin"? >> >> Your support and guidance would be greatly appreciated. >> >> Best regards, >> Akiyoshi Kurita (redadmin) > > > Let me start by saying, no, please do not attempt to take over ownership of > that package. > > There is clearly an active maintainer. > You don't seem to understand dependencies, or else you didn't read the > bugzilla very well. > opendmarc has been buildable since May 2025, but it was uninstallable. > Because it was uninstallable, it was untagged. > The maintainer then went through the proper steps to get the runtime > dependencies into EPEL10. > The maintainer then asked for an opinion on the next step. > > You haven't given a single reason why you should take over ownership of the > package. > > I'm sorry if this email is fairly blunt. I really don't want to discourage > you from working in EPEL, but I don't understand your reasoning. > > Troy > > > -- > _______________________________________________ > epel-devel mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue -- _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
