On 07/31/2009 01:47 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 02:00:10AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> 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. > This is not a Fedora preferred form. Getting upstream software out of SRPMS or .debs is more painful than getting them out of tarballs. >> 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? > The proposal doesn't target Fedora or RH. The exception targets Fedora or Red Hat. This removes that exception. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
