So, in the past we have always had a policy to package as rpms and get into fedora/epel applications we deploy and are upstream for. There were a number of good reasons for this: * We deployed everything on vm's using rpm. * Other users that wanted to reproduce our infrastructure could use the rpms. * It made us sure that the thing passed review and built on various Fedoras with the versions of things there it depended on. However, now a days we have a number of new apps that are deployed in openshift and aren't using rpms, but pip or s2i or other things. For these packaging them up as rpms becomes a burden with not too many gains. ;( So, I was thinking we should codify a new policy. (To avoid confusion for application authors and others). Something like: Applications in Fedora Infrastructure may be deployed via non rpm methods (as long as they obey licensing guidelines ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Licensing )). For those applications, creating and maintaining an rpm is optional. Thoughts? kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
