+1 from me

+1

+1

+1

It seems your bugzilla mail doesn't match fas, please adjust.

Review list: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?component=Package%20Review&email1=domsch&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&list_id=12077841&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced

If that's the right list, the last review is from 2014… You certainly have enough experience and have been doing ongoing packaging work, but also the way that we do reviews has changed a bit since then, so I would certainly recommend doing a few (non-sponsorship) reviews to refresh.

+1

+1

+1

+1 from me

+1

+1

It seems your bugzilla mail doesn't match fas, please adjust.

Review list: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?component=Package%20Review&email1=domsch&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&list_id=12077841&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced

If that's the right list, the last review is from 2014… You certainly have enough experience and have been doing ongoing packaging work, but also the way that we do reviews has changed a bit since then, so I would certainly recommend doing a few (non-sponsorship) reviews to refresh.

+1

@zbyszek thank you for your comment and +1 vote. I agree that keeping up with packaging guidelines is necessary for sponsors, and I have done so both with packages I maintain (SoapySDR, CubicSDR, direwolf, and related ham radio packages) and with packages I use frequently and advise the maintainers on (opendkim, openarc, opendmarc), all within the last year.

It's been over a week now, and I see 11 +1s and 0 -1s so this is approved.

Use your powers wisely!