On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 04/26/2012 02:30 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Alec Leamas<leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> >>> On 04/26/2012 01:18 PM, Nelson Marques wrote: >>>> >>>> No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher >>>> <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Why not just drop the sponsorship process and just raise the barrier >>>>>> of >>>>>> entry for the packaging process instead? >>>>>> >>>>>> Like having to have been a comaintainer for atleast one release cycle >>>>>> then completed x many reviews in the next etc. ( essentally what you >>>>>> propose there just without the "sponsor" ) and finally you are >>>>>> maintaining your own package or if we drop that outdated ownership >>>>>> model >>>>>> we have in place are free to roam "free" in the packaging community >>>>>> and >>>>>> assist when ever, where ever possible... >>>>> >>>>> This approach completely disregards the very common example of "I'm an >>>>> upstream maintainer of a cool project. I want to package and maintain >>>>> it >>>>> for Fedora." Under your approach, they'd first have to become involved >>>>> in other projects before being allowed to add their package. This is >>>>> unacceptable and would basically guarantee that no upstream would >>>>> willingly involve itself with Fedora. >>>> >>>> I was asked by a upstream to maintain a package for Fedora due to the >>>> high demand it has from Fedora users, unfortunatly I backed down from >>>> the proposal for several purposes: >>>> >>> [cut] >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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. >> >> I've been asked to package things before, by friends, colleagues, >> upstream devs, etc. My response it typically, "Oh, neat, I'd never >> heard of that!"<rushes off to make an RPM and submit a review> I >> know we have a wishlist, but I'm not sure it's being used by >> non-packagers, or packagers for that matter. >> > Which is fine if you are friend, colleague or an upstream developer knowing > about you. Not all are ;) > > Seems that when this happens, it's going the informal way - which is good. > But someone who just tries to read the webpages, will eventually submit a > bugzilla package review request. And in many cases things have gone terribly > wrong then IMHO. > > I might be totally out in the blue, but my feeling is that there's a lot of > information on "How to become a Fedora packager" - but very little about > "How do I get my package into Fedora?". If this is true, it might possibly > reflect that this issue havn't been thought of as needed. > > Being a newbie I havn't seen the fedora wishlist (but rpmfusions's). The > first thing which strikes me when I check it is that the there's no link to > the person who submitted the request. For me, this is essential - having a > motivated contact upstream makes a difference. Yes! Exactly. I'd love to see this fixed. What if we had a simple process where someone could file a BZ with a component of Wishlist or something, and we could direct this sort of thing there? Then existing packagers could check it out, file a review BZ blocking that Wishlist bug, and the submitter therefore would be reachable, and could follow the whole process. Also, since BZ is searchable, people could search it before submitting a Wishlist or Review, to see if it's already out there being worked on, if it was tried and failed, why that might be, etc. I'm not sure if this needs a Whole New Process, or simply a new link and BZ component. Thoughts? -J > > --a > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------------ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
