Actually, I think it's an excellent question to ask how things like this (and related subjects) should be organized. I don't think we should be stuck with categorizations that were defined, by fiat, 5+ years ago. Much has happened, and a good (better?) characterization tree might be a good thing for a near-term version of Fedora. Eric Raymond has spoken that he'd like to present the Trove (http://www.catb.org/~esr/trove/). I for one think it might be useful to find some happy medium between the obviously small number of groups defined by http://www.fedora.us/wiki/RPMGroups, the large number defined by the Trove, those defined implicitly and explicitly by ibiblio, etc. I don't want this to confound the discussion about how Fedora Collections might be defined, but I do think that a proper hierarchy of functionality would help both the archivists, collectors, and applicators of open source technologies. M On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 11:37, Neil Horman wrote: > Silke Reimer wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 11:07:51AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > >>Silke Reimer wrote: > >> > >>>Hallo list again, > >>> > >>>I just did my self-introduction and immediately I have my first > >>>questions: > >>> > >>>1. > >>>If I want to announce and provide the packages which I produced, is > >>>it necessary to set up a special directory tree on my server > >>>(something like fedora/2/i386/RPMS.unstable etc.) where the packages > >>>are made available for download? > >>> > >>>2. > >>>I am not sure about the right Fedora tree for my packages. Most of > >>>them are stable in my opinion and could placed in testing but since > >>>these are my first Fedora packages I am thinking about to place them > >>>in unstable for the start. What do you think? > >>> > >>>3. > >>>I don't know which official group I should use. For the libraries > >>>this is rather easy. But I don't what to do with GIS software > >>>(perhaps Applications/Productivity). It is even more difficult with > >>>geodata. They don't seem to fit to any group of RH (s. > >>>http://www.fedora.us/wiki/RPMGroups). Any idea? > >>> > >>>Ciao, > >>> > >>> Silke > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >>Check out the QA and Submission policy link at www.fedora.us: > >>http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackageSubmissionQAPolicy > > > > > > OK. This does help for point 1. Sorry for asking this stupid > > question. But I still don't know what to do with 2. and 3. Of course > > I could let this open for the QA-people but I think it does make > > sense to fill in the right values from the very beginning. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Silke > > > > > > They aren't stupid questions. :) > > 2) I think its best left up to you. QA people will comment on what they > think about you're decision when you submit the package. If you aren't > sure as to the stability of your package, I'd put it in unstable. Move > it later, when you feel its ready. > > 3) I think Applications/Productivity is a fine place to put GIS > software, but again, your decision. > Neil > > -- > /*************************************************** > *Neil Horman > *Software Engineer > *Red Hat, Inc. > *nhorman@xxxxxxxxxx > *gpg keyid: 1024D / 0x92A74FA1 > *http://pgp.mit.edu > ***************************************************/ >
