On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 10:44:05AM +0100, Matej Cepl wrote: > On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:26:36 +0100, Patrice Dumas scripst: > > Because I think that being upstream and the primary maintainer of a > > package in fedora (or any distro) is not a very good idea. If there are > > conflict of interest between upstream and the distro (think about name > > space, install paths, quality), I think that having a maintainer who is > > not the primary upstream maintainer is a good thing. Having upstream > > co-maintain, or even do the packaging work is a good idea, but I think > > that upstream should not have the last saying for the package. > > Well, I would be bothered with stuff like this for some huge packages > (OOo), but I don't think (with all due respect to your utility) one > reasonable guy should IMHO be able to keep two hats on his head. And you > wouldn't be the first one (by far). I have seen a lot of reviews where this issue shows up, upstream being willing to put an app in fedora, but not for fedora, in order to gain a wider audience. Those conflicts were easily seen. I don't want to be in that situation. If my app is good enough somebody else will package it (and I will gladly review it). -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
