On 08/01/2009 02:17 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > 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. This is a bit of circular logic. They find it sufficient because the packaging guidelines explicitly added a exception to accommodate this. Otherwise they would have bothered to do so. I don't see why they should > be forced to just to be part of Fedora. Again, they are not random developers. They are part of Fedora Project. > 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. So a special exception doesn't sound at all? Do you think that is encouraging them to setup a proper project hosting? > 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? I am not the one targeting Red Hat or Fedora packages. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#We_are_Upstream They were targeted in the exception which I am asking FESCo to drop. Rahul -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
