Margaret Lum wrote:
Warren Togami wrote:
Right, unsigned in Fedora. Proprietary or 3rd party apps needing a
signed JAR would need to provide it from a separate source. Can you
confirm that it could be parallel installed without much trouble?
There won't be any need for this, as developers can sign at their own
discretion.
Red Hat (the company) could (pending legal approval) choose to
proceed with this as part of an internal product. But as the rules
stand today, Fedora cannot ship this signed.
We will ship this UNsigned, in Fedora. Can approval be re-evaluated?
Right, yes it can.
Please let me know what the next steps to working this through the
approval committee expediently. I want to make sure there aren't
details omitted that would hinder this package from being approved.
Thanks!
There is no approval committee. Inclusion of the package only requires
package review approval of ANYBODY. The reviewer could even be another
member of the same team of the submitter of the package review.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/NewPackageProcess
Please familiarize yourself with this process document.
Many dozens of java packages were included in Fedora in the past few
months in this fashion, where a team within Red Hat had separate people
act as package submitter and package reviewer. I don't remember all
their names at the moment, though I believe rafaels@ and dbhole@ were
among the RH participants involved with inclusion of those many java
packages.
If you have deadlines for business reasons to get packages into Fedora
or EPEL, please don't wait for unaccountable external volunteers. Any
team has the power to get a package in without the need for external
participation or approval.
Please let us know here on this list if you have further questions.
Thanks,
Warren Togami
wtogami@xxxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
