On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 08:06:45AM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Sun, Mar 09, 2025 at 07:41:31PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > We should probably try and get this into Fedora proper, right? Ideally everything needed by Fedora infrastructure is in Fedora itself, it took us a few years to get there with mailman so the earlier we start the better > > > > > > > Yes indeed, starting now would allow us to start on the right foot. > > Yes. Normal packaging should be a requirement for tools that are expected > to be used by the standard Fedora packager or for Fedora infrastracture. > > For two separate reasons: > - that software is easier to use and deploy, in particular to keep updated. > - passing through a packaging review is a proof of minimal quality of the > software. Going through the steps for packaging will uncover > possible license problems, emedded libraries, and other shenanigans > that might not go unnoticed as long as some build&deployment script > is being used. > > And we want to get this info _before_ we commit to the tool. I think having a rpm would be awesome and agree with your reasons. That said, we shouldn't say it's a requirement for Infrastructure. We already deploy some applications other ways and don't have a hard requirement on an rpm being available anymore. But we should definitely have one... kevin -- _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
