On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 19:35:41 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > But thats not how I look at it least. Instead of being one package who > says "My packages are great", you can say "My packages are great, and > other people help me when they can, and I help them out and our > community is great". It's not that no one is responsible for anything, > it's that everyone is responsible for everything. If you see some way > you can help, you do, and you don't stop with "oh, thats not my > package, I'll let the owner deal with it" That's somewhat out of context given that Jerry has referred to *non-helpful* modifications applied by provenpackagers. I wonder why nobody has replied to notting's question in this thread yet? There is a huge difference between the package maintenance models as applied by different packagers. That's not specific to Fedora. Other dists are also affected. Some packagers try to establish contact with upstream devs, others don't. Some packagers try to get fixes included upstream to have the entire community benefit from it, others are proud of their heavily patched packages. Some packagers try to handle problem reports in bugzilla, others don't (for various reasons not limited to profane reasons such as "bugzilla isn't sexy"). Some avoid bugzilla like a plague. That's a big hindrance for fellow packagers, btw. Some packagers are easier to deal with than others. Now as provenpackagers are packagers too, there are some among them who have completely differing views on how to do package maintenance. That is the problem, if you touch a package in a way the primary maintainer doesn't agree with. The provenpackager, who touches his "own" packages in the same questionable way, likely doesn't see any problem. A maintenance model that aims at "less responsibility + less effort" is highly problematic. For version upgrades the provenpackager would better acquire official commit access to the package *and* keep contact with the other maintainer(s) to get a feeling on how to team up. > Perhaps we can explain it better by saying "everyone owns all > packages" ? Hasn't the term "package owner" been considered highly controversial and problematic several times before? I really want to see more team-work at Fedora. People practising package maintenance as a collaborated effort. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
