Fellow R-module packagers,
I wanted to let you know that I have (finally) submitted the first of my R packages for review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241052
Please take a look and let me know if there is anything I can do to improve this package.
Once all the wrinkles are ironed out and the package is accepted, I will submit my other packages for review.
Thanks for your help!
Past discussion: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-r-devel-list/2007-April/msg00003.html
Cheers, Tom
Fellow R-module packagers,
I believe I have resolved the outstanding problems with the submission of R-Matrix. Please take a look and let me know if there is anything else I ought to do:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241052
Thanks for your help!
Cheers, Tom
On Friday 25 May 2007 17:05:18 Tom Moertel wrote:
Fellow R-module packagers,
I believe I have resolved the outstanding problems with the submission of R-Matrix. Please take a look and let me know if there is anything else I ought to do:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=241052Thanks for your help!
I will try to have a look at them next week. I still have to release the first release candidate of lyx 1.5 meanwhile. :-)
Cheers, Tom
Fellow R-module packagers,
Sorry for all questions. I'm still trying to navigate my away through the nooks and crannies of the submission process.
While following the instructions in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
the "Add Package to CVS and Set Owner" step referred me to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure
I'm presently following the "New Packages" instructions of the second document. They tell me that I must make a Bugzilla comment (presumably to my approved package-review-request ticket), containing the following:
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: R-Matrix Short Description: R module, Classes etc. for dense and sparse matrices and matrix ops Owners: tom@moertel.com Branches: FC-6 F-7 InitialCC: tom@moertel.com
It's pretty clear to me what ought to go in each of the required fields except Branches. I guessed "FC-6 F-7", but the PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure page says:
Valid branch names currently used for Fedora: FC-5 FC-6 F-7 EL-4 EL-5.
Should I list them all? Only the ones for which I have personally tested the package? Some other combination? What's the guiding philosophy here -- more, fewer, or something else?
Thanks again for all your help!
Cheers, Tom
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 15:21 -0400, Tom Moertel wrote:
It's pretty clear to me what ought to go in each of the required fields except Branches. I guessed "FC-6 F-7", but the PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure page says:
Valid branch names currently used for Fedora: FC-5 FC-6 F-7 EL-4 EL-5.
Should I list them all? Only the ones for which I have personally tested the package? Some other combination? What's the guiding philosophy here -- more, fewer, or something else?
Decide which branches you're able to test and maintain. R is pretty consistent across FC-5, FC-6, and F-7. I can't vouch for EL-4, EL-5, as I've never built R there yet. I'll probably end up doing it, as I'm sure there is interest from the .edus.
You can always add branches later.
~spot
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 15:21 -0400, Tom Moertel wrote: Decide which branches you're able to test and maintain. [...]
I'm going for FC-6 and F-7, then. Thanks for your response.
Now I'm just waiting for my 'fedorabugs' group membership to clear so I can set the fedora-cvs flag on my ticket in order to get the CVS module created.
Thanks again for all your help.
Cheers, Tom
r-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
José Abílio Matos -
Tom Callaway -
Tom Moertel