> > > I'll admit that some of the trouble is more imaginary than real: five > > minutes spent copying, pasting and double-checking can easily seem like > > an eternity, when it's actually a mere five minutes... but why waste > > them, if it can be avoided? > > You cannot avoid human interaction as in setting bugzilla keywords and > replying to comments. You could only avoid that with ultimately trusted > package maintainers who get direct access to a build/publish system. > Absolutely true, although I believe the current system is still daunting for a new packager or reviewer. I'm not sure how to make it less so without compromising quality other than saying that people need to just jump in, and ask for help on the list if needed. Would there be some benefit to having a separate list for Extra's discussion? > > No. It's in fedora.us already in the "stable" repository (much to the > disliking of some people) and the fedora.us build system uses a modified > version, http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~ensc/fedora.us-build/html/ > but that is not an automated build system. > > > Should it be sanctioned as a required tool for packagers? > > No, because it behaves differently than plain rpmbuild. > Nonetheless, we really need to have a build environment that's >easily< available for prospective packagers and QA testers to build packages on. I propose mach, but a lot of people don't like it. Redhat has an internal build system. Are there plans to release it It's been a couple months since I was last harping on the list for some feedback from the powers that be at RedHat regarding the official Fedora Extra's infrastructure. Has there been progress? This issue really needs to be resolved, even if the resolution is "we will eventually take over the fedora.us infrastructure as it stands and abide by the policies decided upon by the fedora.us community" or the other extreme of "we don't like the idea of an official Fedora Extra's after all, do your own thing", or more likely something in between. --erik
