On 2/4/2016 4:48 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
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.
"My own personal view is that packagers *should* establish contact with
upstream devs, so that changes they make can be incorporated upstream.
However, this is not always easy. The comments in this thread about
packagers can also be applied, easily, to the upstream community. Some
devs are friendly and helpful, while others are do it my way types of
people. Chromium is a good example of the latter. My opinions on chrome
are well known so I won't repeat them, only saying that accessibility is
one of those topics that *is not* optional, but mandatory, at least in
my opinion. The fedora community has treated me extremely well and you
guys really do care about accessibility, which is fantastic. You're one
of the few, with the exception of the debian accessibility community,
who actually seems to care. Which makes it even harder to deal with
communities where developers, and there are quite a few, that say they
care but lack the knowledge, frustrating, or simply don't seem to care
at all, enfuriating. I've looked at the accessibility packages in
fedora, a couple of them at least, and every developer I've talked to
communicates with upstream where possible, although espeak is going
through a bit of flux at the moment having recently been forked.
Joanmeri diggs, the lead orca developer, , I believe uses fedora to
develop orca on, which says a lot about it. I use it as one of my main
distros myself. It was fedora which inspired me to start a git
repository of pronunciation fixes for espeak, which are now periodically
being merged into the espeak fork.I'm not completely sure what the OP
meant in the original post, I think I missed it, but fedora, like every
other distro, is a community made up of different people. Some of them
will do their best to make sure their changes and fixes get incorporated
into upstream, some will assume that upstream should come to them.
Neither view is wrong, exactly, just different. I have extremely strong
views on accessibility, sometimes overly strong, which tend to come out
if I feel slighted or not taken seriously. Especially in this age of
mass produced products that show little, if any, effort in regards to
accessibility. Things like phones that don't talk, computers with
windows that don't come with adequate assistive software, etc. I'm
rambling, so I'll stop now.
Just my two cents
Kendell clark
"
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
