On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 18:47:37 +0200, Iago Rubio wrote: > On Sat, 2021-08-14 at 09:04 +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > I think there's some idea to rescue here. I agree that adopting > > orphaned packages can be harder than it seems, but OTOH, it's a task > > that has big benefits for the community. In the past, the recommended > > way to become a packager, and the way that had the easiest process, > > was to add a new package. This made a lot of sense when the distro > > was > > smaller and there were always new things that could be reasonably > > added. Nowadays, we either have most upstream projects packaged, or > > they are very big and complex to package, or have many dependencies, > > or legal issues, or there just isn't that much need to have them > > packaged. And all other things being equal, I it's better to have one > > package maintained continuously, than a package maintained for some > > time and then dropped, and another package maintained. While we may > > have a constant of 1 package maintained, the second case disappoints > > users. > > > > tl;dr: I think we should change the guidelines [1] to explicitly > > recommend opening a pull request for an orphaned package as one of > > the > > ways. Maybe even describe it first. And describe the steps that need > > to be done in detail, so that it's easy to unexperienced folks to > > follow. > > > > I can feel the pain of Stephen, as I went through something like that > some years ago, and was quite frustrating. > > I was at that time main developer of a small project that was on every > distro, and I was a Fedora user. > > I went ahead to build the rpm for fedora and got some tips about how to > improve the spec but I was never able to get an sponsor, and was told > the spec was not fit for Fedora. > > In the meantime another user grabbed the spec and sources from > project's csv and submited it as his first package for review. > > He got an sponsor right away and became the maintainer of the package, > without changing a line of what I had in csv. That's very odd. The guidelines remain the same for all of us. So a spec that didn't pass a review the first time should not pass the review again without changes. > > It was really frustrating ... to the point I've never submited another > package for review. > > A better - or more clear - way to become a package maintaner would > help. > Some of us would like to help, but can't find a clear way to do it. I think we're always open to suggestions. So if you have any, please do share them with us. Sponsorship to the packager group is based on trust---trust that the candidate knows the packaging pipeline and guidelines well enough. How individual sponsors come about trusting candidates is quite a personal thing I guess, but generally submitting good packages for review and showing the understanding of guidelines by doing reviews is quite sufficient. That is not the only way, though. Co-maintaining, pull requests, personal relationships are all ways of earning community trust, as documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group This was recently developed (last few weeks!) as a centralised place to look for sponsors: https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-sponsors/ I don't think it's been added to all the necessary docs yet, but it will soon. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
