Dear Ben,
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 07:35:57AM -0400, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 16:20:59 +1000, Róman Joost wrote:
> > Btw. I'm also happy to do some reviewing. The last once I was interested
> > in tho were missing updated spec files (the ones posted ended up in a
> > 404).
>
>
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 16:20:59 +1000, Róman Joost wrote:
> Btw. I'm also happy to do some reviewing. The last once I was interested
> in tho were missing updated spec files (the ones posted ended up in a
> 404).
Yeah, sorry about that. My hosting admin hasn't responded about hooking
up the
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 02:04:42AM -0400, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
>
> I could help with reviews, but cannot approve anything without being
> sponsored.
Btw. I'm also happy to do some reviewing. The last once I was interested
in tho were missing updated spec files (the ones posted ended up
Hi Jens,
I am packaging git-annex in a copr [1]. As I'm sure you're aware, it
requires ~100 dependent packages. When one package fails to build, it's
usually because some dependencies are built against some differing versions
of _another_ dependency. Thus I need to figure out where these packages
Good question - the subpackaging is just a hack (and yes it is confusing
sorry) to workaround packaging manpower basically.
Package reviews for such subpackages are very welcome and will replace the
subpackages in the long term, assuming the current detailed Package Review
workflow continues.
I
