Le mer, 28/04/2004 Ã 05:36 -0400, Chris McDonough a Ãcrit : > On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 05:18, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le mer, 28/04/2004 Ã 05:15 -0400, Chris McDonough a Ãcrit : > > > Ack! I just spent a long time doing some packaging in prep for upload > > > too... I should have done more homework. > > > > Though this does not mean getting a version in fedora.us would be a bad > > thing. Quite the contrary. > > Sorry, I'm a little new, so I don't understand.. the fedora.us repo is > not connected to the freshrpms repo in any meaningful way? If not, > would it be considered "bad form" for me to take steps to get my > (slightly different) SRPM uploaded into the fedora.us repo? I suppose I > should just work this out with Matthias, but it would be useful to > understand the relationship between freshrpms Fedora repo and the > fedora.us repo before I do. > > FWIW, Matthias appears to have based his spec file on one that I wrote a > while ago, so they're not *too* much different, although they do install > to different directories and mine obeys the Fedora naming conventions > and whatnot. fedora.us have some heavier procedures to ensure package quality. Some top packagers including Matthias decided not to bother with them and maintain their own repo (very simplistic summary). You can however take their SPECS, submit them to fedora and go through the QA process for them (and in turn they're welcome to take back the changes QA proposed and get them in their own specs) I do use freshrpms/dag stuff myself sometimes. For software I intend to depend on long-term, I try to get it in fedora.us, because of stricter QA, RedHat direct involvment, etc. Cheers, -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
