On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 14:18:38 +0100 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 05:53:13 -0600, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> Some time ago, circa May 2015, there was a long thread called "Biting the
Bullet" [1] where some others complained about the lack of pdftk on F21 and later.
(This complaint also manifested itself sometime later.)
>
> In response, and with both general and more specific help from those more
experienced, I was able to put together an RPM for pdf-stapler as an alternative to pdftk.
I submitted to a black hole called Fedora packaging where there was some churn, some more
suggestions (a few contradicting the other) which I duly implemented but no one actually
able to move the process forward. However, it sits here:
>
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1234210
No drama, please.
I am sorry, but whatever said is just my statement of fact.
So many words in this mail of yours. The time could have been spent better
on swapping reviews, reading the process documentation and fixing the
bugzilla tickets, too. Waiting passively leads to something seldomly.
I don't know if I was waiting passively. But if a process is so intricate and
involved, then it needs to be simplified.
The ticket has not even been visible in the needsponsor queue because
the
fedora-review flag set to '?' means there is a reviewer working on it.
OK, I missed this. But should this not be set as the default? What is the point of setting
it as something else, when a review request means that it is looking for a
sponsor/reviewer? Anyway, I noticed that you have changed it now: thanks!!
Best wishes,
Ranjan
____________________________________________________________
FREE ONLINE PHOTOSHARING - Share your photos online with your friends and family!
Visit
http://www.inbox.com/photosharing to find out more!