Le mardi 13 mai 2008 à 08:50 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit : > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Not really. The argument seems to be that there's not enough java > packagers to fill both JPackage and Fedora with rpms. But this is no > different than anyone else who says, there's only a few of us who care > about packaging OCaml programs/Lisp programs/vim plugins and there's too > many useful pieces of software written in that language that users want > for us to handle. Make accomodations for us so that users can decide to > make use of this third party repository where upstream/other distros can > help us with the packaging effort. Well, organise yourself and prove this third-party repository value. JPP has nothing to prove. It antedates Fedora. > Either we decide that JPackage is special because it has guidelines for > packaging that we agree with, our java packagers mostly work in that > repository anyway, (to re-emphasise what you've said) "we reuse > extensively the work done [in the JPackage repository]", > and we have a > presence there that allows us to make changes to JPackage guidelines and > policies when there is a need This has always been the case. FLOSS project, contributors decide, some Red Hat/Fedora people are major JPackage contributors. The problem is not there is no presence, or that this presence is ignored, but that this presence is not used at all by the Fedora instances. You'd be hard-pressed to find one message on this subject by the people that want to force this change on the public jpackage list where most of the people needing convincing are. You do have a few messages by Red Hat people who are hard pressed to defend a change they didn't propose or adhere with. > or we stop saying that it should be a goal > that our users can switch out the Fedora stack with the JPackage stack > on any arbitrary update. We can stop saying that that won't magically create alternative packages Fedora side. > What we have now makes no sense: > > 1) JPackage derived packages are supposed to be switchable with Fedora > packages on a per package basis (per the original justifications for the > .jpp exception) > > 2) JPackage derived packages are supposed to be switchable with Fedora > packages on a whole stack basis (per ReasonsForKeepingJPP). > > 3) We could have packages in Fedora that have a counterpart in JPackage > but are not derived from the JPackage package with no rhyme or reason > beyond whether the packager was active in JPackage when they made the > submission. This will cause problems for people attempting to mix > JPackage and Fedora stacks as per #1. Sure it's a danger but is it worse than having to reinvent the wheel twice as a complete fork and separation would lead to? (assuming both branches do not deperish for lack of contributors) > 4) JPackage Guidelines only have a few points of divergence with the > Fedora Guidelines and the stated goal of our java packagers is to make > those divergences disappear. > > 5) The attitude that our users can find a package in JPackage if it's > not in Fedora is detrimental to us. Where ever possible, we don't want > user's to have to *find* packages, we want them to be able to yum > install the package out of the box. Note it has never been the goal to "hoard" packages jpp-side. They can flow Fedora-way as long as Fedora changes are pushed back where non-Fedora packagers may use them and the two repositories do not painfully diverge. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
