On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 02:00:10AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >On 08/01/2009 01:31 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> >> Source0: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/lookaside/pkgs/anaconda/anaconda-11.5.0.59.tar.bz2/0b0b7b30f1ff03bad05bda3d052b73a8/anaconda-11.5.0.59.tar.bz2 >> >> is really no better. > >This would ridiculous. I don't think any project is going to do this. It's no more ridiculous than forcing someone to setup a project website to host tarballs. >Even if they do want to go to this extend, we don't need to grant them >special exceptions. We can recommend that the projects used a proper >project hosting facility and leave it at that. I This is part of the problem. Perhaps the developers don't want to be bothered with setting up a project hosting facility for something they to-date have been releasing in a manner they find sufficient. I don't see why they should be forced to just to be part of Fedora. If we want to encourage and recommend that, great! But saying it's required when they are providing sufficient means of getting the source to the package (in a Fedora perferred form even!) is a bit odd to me. >All you are doing is forcing people to list a URL. Also, >> if an upstream project doesn't want to host all that and wants to use the SRPM >> as the source, who is Fedora to tell them they can't? > >It is a random upstream project but one developed within Fedora and >Fedora can and should tell them not to do so. Why shouldn't we? Again >they don't need or deserve special exceptions. Treat them like any other >upstream project. That is all I ask. No. That is part of the problem with your proposal. You have targetted RH or Fedora packages that do this. If some other package only distributes via SRPM (or .deb, or ebuild), they aren't required to comply. Why force these RH/Fedora packages to do something that we don't force other packages to? josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
