On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 22:00 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > Hello, > > The issue of upstream disappearing is somewhat common (some examples in > mind, former vixie-cron, dos2unix, libnet), maybe we could have a policy > about it. There are also some packages fedora is upstream for, covered in > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#head-413e1c297803cfa9de0cc4c56f3ac384bff5dc9e > and some that are not really packages, like redhat-rpm-config. > > I think that we really should avoid having any package packaged in a > srpm only (which is the case for package with missing upstream and > packages fedora is upstream for), and try to use systematically version > control system for the packages fedora is upstream for, even packages > that are not really independent packages, like redhat-rpm-config. > > I think that the 2 cases should be handled differently: > > * fedora specific: on https://fedorahosted.org/ > > * missing upstream: I think that fedorahosted is not right, a distro > neutral place should in my opinion be better. I also think that it > should be coordinated with other distros. In my opinion discussing > about it on the new distributions list and announcing on that list > should be interesting. And once things are settled, I think that there > should be an obligation for the fedora maintainers to use that new > hosting (or another, but this one would be the classical one). > > What do you think? distro-neutral is reasonable but may be complicated for someone to provide. What if the name for the project was distro-neutral but if we were actually hosting the service in fedora infrastructure? I'm not offering this as something we WILL do - just wondering how you would feel about it. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
