On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:23:20AM +1100, Colin Charles wrote: > On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 20:12 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > For one I fail to see any connection of the issues at hand (GFS kernel > > modules) with extras, so forcing people to contribute to extras just > > because they want to contribute to FC/RHEL seems to be very wrong. > > You mentioned kernel module packaging, and a post was referenced that > was stuck on fedora-maintainers. You complained that this wasn't exactly > a very open way of doing things > > Jef mentioned becoming an Extras packager, so that you get on the > fedora-maintainers list. And now you fail to see the connection? Yes, because this is not a subject to be discussed on a closed list. It certainly affects more than extras, core and rhel. In fact this discussion is more about ISVs like the dozens of 3rd party repos and driver packagers. > >From the fedora-maintainers listinfo page: > "This is the list for maintainers of packages in Fedora Core and Fedora > Extras. Subscription to this list is contingent on one of these two > criteria." > > So, if you get involved with the process, you get on the list. I'm not talking about maintaining any specific package, this is about infrastructure and naming/versioning schemes. > Otherwise, following the discussion is still possible, thanks to fedora- > maintainers-readonly > > Now what's incredibly unfair with getting involved with the process to > contribute to The Fedora Project? No one's forcing you to contribute to > Extras; you just have to meet one of the two criteria AFAIK a signed agreement is needed. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpp5o6z4VVmm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
