On Mon, 2015-09-14 at 16:54 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 12 September 2015 at 04:10, Adam Williamson > <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I agree that the discussion here needs to be more broad-based; see > > the > > other thread fork. I was just providing support for Stephen's > > contention that this is not some airy-fairy theoretical problem, > > there > > are multiple examples of real things that people *wanted* to have > > packaged that are not packaged because the unbundling process was > > too > > onerous. > > This is the idea behind COPR and Fedora Playground though - ensuring > that packages that are *legally* acceptable for redistribution are > easy to publish and consume for Fedora and EPEL users, while still > being clearly distinct from the ones that have passed full review > against the packaging guidelines. > > What we haven't managed to do yet is update the package review > process > to better account for the distinction, such as by adopting a "COPR > first" model, where folks put a package up in COPR with bundled > components, and then either keep it there indefinitely, or > collaborate > with others on the unbundling effort. Just to be awkward - I kinda found working with COPRs a PITA the only time I tried it and went back to using my own server space. This of course isn't an option for everyone, but it *is* an option for some of us who are already packaging stuff, and maybe I'm not the only one who prefers it? :) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
