On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 03:16:51PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > Only by agreement, though. There is no infrastructure in place to > enforce anything like this. Agreed. It is just what is commonly done. > ----- > PD> After some thinking and looking at some packages, I came to the > PD> conclusion that having upstream as primary maintainer in fedora > PD> should be avoided if possible. > ----- > > I object to this as a general rule. Not only is there no way to > enforce this except by agreement, but it is simply not possible to > reasonably make that generalization and I also find it to take a > rather dim view of the potentially enormous contributions which could > be made by upstream developers if we could only get them interested. Ok, my statement was a bit too much. To state it in a more sensible manner, the extras community should really make sure that the upstream maintainers maintaining their package in fedora extras do it in a manner suitable for fedora and not with upstream objectives. -- Pat -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
