>On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 12:04 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: >> After hacking a simple tool which provides a GUI for a repository file >> it's possible to create repository packages complete with desktop and >> appdata file. I have some 5-10 such repository packages under way, my >> plan is to push them into rpmfusion. > http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors#Read_the_packaging_guidelines > "RPM Fusion follows the Fedora packaging guidelines, make sure you've > read and understood these: > Naming Guidelines > > > "Guidelines" is a link to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines : > "Configuration for package managers in Fedora MUST ONLY reference the > official Fedora repositories in their default enabled and disabled state > (see the yum repo configuration in the fedora-release package for the > canonical list). Unofficial and third-party repositories that contain > only packages that it is legal for us to direct people to in Fedora (see > the Forbidden items and Licensing:Main pages for an explanation of what > is legal) may be shipped in %{_docdir}. The idea is that the system > administrator would need to explicitly copy the configuration file from > doc into the proper location on the filesystem if they want to enable > the repository." > Presumably one is to s/Fedora/RPMFusion and Fedora/g/ when reading that > as applying to Fusion, but still, Fusion's policies would appear to > forbid you to ship packages that contain 'active' external repository > configuration. >> If there will be a way for users to aggregate appdata from different >> sources such as rpmfusion (don't fully really understand this process >> right now) users will be able to search and find also non-free items >> as long there is a packaged repository for them. It should work out of >> the box right now using old-school tools based on package metadata. >> Not ideal, but perhaps something. > So I found this point interesting in thinking about these issues this > morning. There was a post of Hughesie's (I think) in another thread > which was also illuminating: it suggested the design of Software is to > be a generic 'software' installer - to provide as much 'software' from > as many sources as possible, under the 'it's all just software' theory, > guess. > I think the assumption that this is obviously the right design is > interesting, because I strongly disagree - not just for legal or policy > reasons, but because that's most definitely *not* what I want. I > cut] ------- Sorry for badly formatted reply - lost the original in my mailbox and only have this web UI right now :(. Anyway, I have submitted [1], a rpmfusion review request for dropbox-repo. A real case should hopefully provide a sound base for remaining things to discuss. --alec [1] https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3152 On 1/27/14, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 01/27/2014 05:36 AM, Ian Malone wrote: >> So without, unfortunately, the time to read through reams of stuff >> on this and with my user hat on (don't think I've seen any >> discussion of this on the users list), if it means how fedora >> actually works is better thought out then that's a good thing, but >> does this mean there will be things unavailable on some 'products' >> that are not on others? At the minute you install a spin and can >> add whatever other packages. That's great if you want to do >> something like set up a quick web server for testing or stream some >> music without creating VMs everywhere. It sounds a bit like this >> plan may end up with finding you can't do X on a Fedora system >> because you installed the wrong flavour. >> > > No. > > The Products will be defining an environment and a standard install > set. They may have separate initial *installation* repositories if > they need to provide different options to Anaconda, but beyond that > the intent is for all of the Products to continue to draw from the > same store of packages together. > > If (for example) we got ourselves into a situation where you couldn't > install Fedora Server and then also install the GNOME desktop > environment on that Server, this would be considered a major bug and > one that we would need to reconcile immediately. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1 > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAlLmWdMACgkQeiVVYja6o6P0twCfRk46ssphyt3+iZUnbh/t4TrG > +FEAoINANDTuTrd+jEY8rFLydsna8obW > =bmho > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
