Re: FC2 initial schedule posted

[Chris Ricker <kaboom gatech edu>]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Eric S. Raymond wrote:

> Michael K. Johnson <johnsonm redhat com>:
> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 02:35:05PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > > I think you're making a bad mistake.  By encouraging the upstream
> > > developers to automate RPM submission, you would substantially increase
> > > the freshness of the updates you get.
> > 
> > That's really not a major problem; when things just build from
> > upstream, updating them isn't a problem.
> 
> I don't understand.  I though the point of accepting RPM submissions was so
> that you don't have to do builds at all, but can push package construction
> out to the upstream maintainers.
> 
> If that's not what you're after, why accept RPM submissions at all?

External maintainers do the work of maintaining the RPM (creating and
updating .spec, making patches, etc.) but beehive (RH build software)  
actually builds the RPMs.

later,
chris