On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:59:30 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote: > Still, besides this sad experience, isn't this the kind of cooperation > we should encourage? Now and then those great people with great apps > want their app in Fedora. Instead of saying "Wonderful, welcome", we > send them a list of an actually quite complicated set of requirements to > become a packager. But those people don't want that, they just want > their application packaged. And although they havn't the packaging > skills, they know their app. And that's actually a damned good starting > point. Is it? You want packages that will be well-maintained and will stay in the distribution for more than half a year. There have been packages, which have been trivial to review'n'approve because of the simplicity of their spec files, but that doesn't mean the packager/maintainer follows Fedora closely enough as necessary to handle bugzilla/ABRT tickets, rebuilds, updates, bug-fixes, or packaging-fixes (reported by scripts or for Rawhide). For various reasons. Oh, it's fun if some breakage seems to be specific to Fedora (or specific to leading-edge releases), and an upstream maintainer is not interested in dealing with that. Sometimes even Rawhide's daily broken deps report is considered intimidating. I've answered tons of mails when I generated the extra broken deps reports for the released dists. And more often than not, the mails were negative and not positive/curious. The package review process ensures that the packagers learn to know what will be necessary to build in a minimum build environment such as with koji/mock and that there are several packaging mistakes which lead to increased trouble/maintenance or even unreproducible builds. > What I'm talking about is to tell these great people that there are two > ways to get their app packaged. One way is to become a packager, and so > far this discussion is about that path,. Obviously, the requirements > here are beyond knowing an app, though. > > The other way should be to find, persuade (bribe?) a packager to take > care of the package in cooperation with the developer. As I understand > it, there is no such path today(?) I think it's a pity, because the > cooperation between a developer and a packager is actually a good way of > doing it. Sure there is! And that's _two_ people already, who would work on the package. The theory fails, if there is no volunteer packager to begin with. And anyway, how many packages have more than one _active_ maintainer? It would be fairly easy for interested packagers to become co-maintainers and become more familiar with Fedora Packaging that way. -- Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.3.2-8.fc17.x86_64 loadavg: 0.00 0.01 0.05 -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
