<pragmatic>
This group is the ideal group to find the *right* solution, and to
implement that solution in their domains. Coming up with a successful
standard that is used by Fedora Extras, RPMForge, and every other major
RPM repository in the world will apply pressure to Fedora Core and RHEL to
follow suit.
</pragmatic>
_____________________ ____________________________________________
Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have
Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the
Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the
] [ dumb. --mcluhan
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 11:09 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
>
> >Is this list really only for Fedora Extras, formerly fedora.us
> >practices? Can't it be extended to a larger universe?
>
> My little piece of the universe is Fedora Extras. That doesn't mean
> other people can't use these standards for their pieces of the universe.
> It also doesn't mean that I'm ignoring everything else, feedback is
> welcome from everyone.
>
> >This was the main obstruction that created the hasm two years ago
> >between fedora.us and the rest of the world. It would be nice to
> >attack this issue w/o isolating again any parties.
>
> My primary goal is to create a set of packaging standards and guidelines
> that will encourage more people to package for Fedora Extras.
> Inevitably, I won't be able to make everyone happy, but I am interested
> in making the majority happy enough to contribute.
>
> >What about Fedora Core itself? It doesn't make sense to have Fedora
> >Core and Extras living side by side having different naming/versioning
> >policies.
>
> You're right. Which is why I'm glad we have some @redhat.com folks who
> have control over the Fedora Core packaging standards on this list. My
> hope is that if the Fedora Extras standards are accepted, used, and
> successful, it will transfer over to Fedora Core.
>
> >In fact I would go as far as to say that a sane set of packaging
> >practices should not only be applicable to Fedora, but to RHEL as well
> >(whether RHEL adopts it is another topic, but it should not be cut off
> >from the beginning), and - why not - even outside the Red Hat rpm
> >world.
>
> I don't see any reason why anyone else shouldn't adopt these guidelines
> for packaging. We're definitely not saying "ONLY FEDORA EXTRAS MAY
> PACKAGE PACKAGES LIKE THIS".
>
> >A lot of issues discussed here already have good solutions and defacto
> >standards in 3rd party repos for Fedora Core or other distributions.
>
> Great! Please help me out, since I don't know of these other solutions
> and standards, and point me to them when I start reinventing the wheel.
>
> >I'd like to finally see a common effort on this and see the
> >unneccessary barriers break to pieces. :)
>
> I agree. Just keep in mind that I'm NOT out to get anyone, and I'm not
> trying to pee in anyone's swimming pool, I'm just trying to document
> simple standards that are easy to follow. :)
>
> ~spot
> ---
> Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
> Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
> Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
> Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!
>
> --
> Fedora-packaging mailing list
> Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
>
