Linus Walleij wrote:
I'm happily upstream and maintainer for three packages, libnjb, libmtp
and gnomad2.
Being part of Fedora has increased quality of all three projects,
perhaps not much but to some extent. The package review process brings
up many issues, and I have the privilege to avoid patching and sending
patches upstream, instead I just FixIt(TM) and release a new version.
When releasing upstream, the fact that the tarball also survives the
build server environment is a good acceptance test that ensures
release quality.
Being both upstream and contributor is quite unproblematic, always
was. And it's not much work at all, once you get into it.
Linus
I'll second that. I'm upstream on bit, bitgtkmm, conexus, conexusmm and
papyrus. Because I needed cairomm to support papyrus, I packaged it as
well. To support another project, clipsmm, I packaged clips. Because I
use Fedora as my development platform I also packaged tetex-IEEEtran and
adopted (adopted in a way) nqc.
I too gained alot of insight on the distribution of the packages (thanks
Ralf Corsepius, Michael Schwendt, Paul Johnson, Gérard Milmeister, Jason
Tibbitts and everyone else that provided feedback).
I think being a part of Fedora Extras has made my upstream packages
better, and I think that the Fedora community should encourage, rather
that discourage, participation by upstream authors as long as said
upstream author's packages meet Fedora standards.
---
Rick L. Vinyard, Jr.
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
