Fedora Extras (was: Re: RPM submission procedure)

Michael Schwendt ms-nospam-0306 at arcor.de
Thu Jan 8 12:38:15 UTC 2004


On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:10:28 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote:

> > > Eric S. Raymond wrote :
> > > 
> > > > But I just got told twice that the Extras repository does not yet
> > > > exist!
> > > 
> > > ...and this is IMHO the biggest issue ATM. Once the minimal
> > > infrastructure shows up, 
> > 
> > Minimal infrastructure won't make people happy who find the current
> > fedora.us infrastructure and system unsatisfactory.
> 
> Not necessarily. I meant things like a CVS repository for all spec files
> and patches (shared for Core, Extras and Alternatives for instance),
> starting to reuse (some of) the fedora.us guidelines and policies etc.

... and the ability to add CVS accounts (who has write-access where?) or
just create it based on existing src.rpms in the repository?  That would
give more convenient access to src.rpm contents. But would it help
populating an official Fedora Extras repo with packages?
 
> > Minimal
> > infrastructure most likely means non-automated builds, and that will
> > require human resources to perform package sanity checks before developer
> > time is wasted on failed build attempts.
> 
> Opening automated builds to outside developers, i.e. "part of the world"
> won't be trivial, so I wouldn't expect that to be anything near, even once
> past the "minimal infrastructure" part. Then again it would be a nice
> surprise if I was wrong about that.
> 
> I'm not quite sure I understand the end of your statement, so maybe I
> missed your point.

The end refers to the necessity of package reviews, which complicate the
package submission process and which are not accepted by some packagers.
Which in turn brings us back to the question how QA will look like with
official Fedora Extras?

-- 





More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list