On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 02:26:20 -0500 (EST), R P Herrold <herrold@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Bottom line: no buildsystem -- not yet a fair question to > expect a yes or no on. I think its perfectly fair to ask a vocal dissenting voice to commit to attempting to use whatever the first presented process is for at least one package... to work within the process instead of continuing to stand outside of the process and comment. I want every packager who has been vocal about the flaws in the fedora.us process to stand up and pledge they will atleast attempt to work inside the new process contributing atleast ONE package as soon as its possible, instead of waiting for the system to be perfect. > Why a closed design cathedral approach? This is a red herring... how quickly to do an initial release has nothing to do with a cathedral approach. I think both Tiemmann and Gafton have tried to comment about where the delay has been in terms of internal Red Hat changes that have absolutely nothing to do with the contributor facing bits. I have no doubt that the build scripts will be made available and feedback will be incorporated. And Gafton has made this intention clear in a post to this very list. He's hacking something together to make publicly available for review sooner rather than later now that the cvs server is up and running. I thought he was pretty clear about that. -jef
