Perhaps you could tell us who this new contributor is, so that one of us could sponsor them.

Wendall Cada, fas rname wendall911. He's working on making the srpm/spec now and filing the ticket in bugzilla. When it's there, I'll update this ticket with that url.

It'd still be nice to be a sponsor since I have several other potential candidates coming through. I've been a part of Fedora since 2007 and am well versed in packaging and the sponsorship process.

Thanks,

herlo

herlo -> Clint Savage -> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Herlo

I find 8 reviews, one in 2012, and all rather short ones. I don't see much guidance:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=POST&bug_status=MODIFIED&bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&bug_status=CLOSED&classification=Fedora&component=Package%20Review&email1=herlo1%40gmail.com&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&list_id=1060994&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced&order=bug_id&query_based_on=

I find comments on 22 review requests since 2009:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?order=Importance&list_id=1061031&emaillongdesc1=1&classification=Fedora&emailtype1=substring&query_format=advanced&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=POST&bug_status=MODIFIED&bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&bug_status=CLOSED&email1=herlo1%40gmail.com&component=Package%20Review&product=Fedora

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_sponsor_a_new_contributor#Becoming_a_Fedora_Package_Collection_Sponsor

It's debatable what constitutes a "nontrivial package review", but while skimming over the reviews, I ran into the "cqrlog" review. It's the one from 2012 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/848213 - The fedora-review script output has been included verbatim without commenting on the findings. The approved cqrlog.spec ( http://sparks.fedorapeople.org/Packages/cqrlog.spec ) raises a few questions. Some are real mistakes, and it would have been an opportunity to discuss the spec file during the review, or at least acknowledge/approve individual parts of the spec file that have been examined specifically.

For example, it !BuildRequires openssl-devel with a comment that it needs "the entire library", but the resulting binary package does not depend on anything from OpenSSL. A simple check to do. The closer look: The source is written in Pascal and searches for the libs in various paths at run-time. This would have deserved a special comment during review, IMO.

The "GPLv2" license tag has not been discussed except for a trailing space. Debian claims "GPLv2 or later" which is confirmed in help/index.html. src/lnet/lib/LICENSE is LGPLv2. src/syn*.pas and a few others are not GPL. src/RegExpr.pas is not GPL at all and even says "You may not have any income from distributing this source (or altered version of it) to other developers. When You use this product in a comercial package, the source may not be charged separately."

/usr/share/pixmaps/cqrlog is not included.

There is a mix of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %buildroot.

Usage of !ExcludeArch requires a bug to be filed and the bug number to be included in the spec file according to the !ReviewGuidelines.

I can just speak for the Django packages, which I took care on renaming those Django packages:

django-mptt: no build from herlo
django-dpaste: no build from herlo
django-tracking: last build 2011 from herlo, but there were no updates fro upstream.

All of them are retired.

So, I'd say: please do more reviews, get more own packages and also try to maintain your packages more actively.

In pkgdb one needs to filter by owner to ignore the watch* acls.

11 packages in pkgdb:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/herlo?acls=owner&acls=approveacls&acls=commit

darkice - Package darkice in Fedora devel has been retired by herlo
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/2012-July/819885.html

It has made it into Fedora 18 and still exists in pkg git. :-/

(!) --> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life

Fair enough, thanks for the information. I didn't mean to say that I was familiar with the sponsorship process from the 'sponsor' end, but have helped a few people get sponsored over the years.

Admittedly, I haven't kept up on couple of RPMs as I wasn't sure I wanted to retire them or pass them off to others. I've been lazy to some extent, but I I will pick back up and get them updated where applicable.

As for the cqrlog package, I'll sit down with Sparks again and go over the things mentioned above. I will say that I recall discussing several of them you pointed out and he had good reasons for doing them the way he did. It was all done in IRC and should have been done in the ticket, so I don't recall the reasons.

Thanks again for the feedback, I'll reapply sometime in the future when I feel like I have met more of the objectives.

I guess I'll go ahead and close this for now. Feel free to reopen in the future, or just open a fresh ticket.