On Fri, 2021-08-20 at 12:32 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 11:03:27PM +0200, Iago Rubio wrote: > > I checked out the wishlist and the first entry is the orphans page, > > that leads to the link I edited to the packager dashboard orphans. > > > > So I am now a bit confused on what should be the path to look for a > > new > > package. > > > > It seems there is no consensus on this issue. > > Yeah. I think both the wishlist and the orphans list are probibly > bad. > Ideally we would have a small list of things that are somewhat easy > looking to package for new folks who are looking for something. I am > not sure who would be willing to maintain such a list though. ;( I guess - from what I am finding now - that something like a step by step tutorial and/or examples to slowly get into Fedora packaging would be a great idea in the long run. The main problem I am finding is the infrastructure, the tooling, the guidelines are all huge. The tooling is very nice, but have many different ways to tackle the same problem for a new packager - in this case get a working package. Copr, fedpkg, fedora-review, koji ... to get deep into it there is a huge learning curve, but it's not really required to get an initial package going. A slimmed down version of the doc - that's really great but dense - with just one tool at a time - build with fedpkg locally, using it as a git replacement, using it to upload a new source tarbal, ... - instead of interleaving all the tooling and explaining how the whole ecosystem works at the same time, would help. This is a case where the forset is what don't let you see the trees. Anyway I think most people need to understand that to get approved as a packager, will give you some "superpowers" - git access, koji access, etc ... - so packagers need to be properly vetted. Many people wants to find a way of droping a spec, and just have the package automagically apear on the repos ... and that just won't happen. That is why many people feels like they are encouraged to join and submit a package, and they end up hitting a wall when they see it's not that easy, because they have to demostrate they can manage and are trustworthy for the new "powers" that come with the packager status. It could be that for "newbies" such as me, a intermediate status - say co-packager, or package helper - would help to prove our worthiness regarding to achieve the packager status. Packagers could post "looking for 'prospect'" messages, where they get people to help them to get the job done, meanwhile they don't get ready to be packagers. But well, I'm starting to digress, sorry. One way to ease to find "easy" packages, may be just put it down in the "Orphaning package" email would help. Just Trivial/Easy/Hard/Complex package, so who comes down the chain will know what he is facing. If a fixed format could be agreed, they even can get "distilled" from the email in some sort of database. Just a dumb idea I guess, but that won't put that much burden on the packager. > > Right now, I was aiming for rarian. > > ... > > Should I go fot it or I'd rather search for other package on the > > wish > > list ? > > That sounds fine to me to revive it. You might mail Mukundan directly > about it. He may be willing to sponsor you and help out... Great idea, Thanks. Will do it. _______________________________________________ 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
