[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: EPEL report 2007, week 19

Josh Boyer schrieb:
> On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 13:22 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Find the report below!
> Overall, looks great.  A few comments below.


BTW, I put it into the wiki now, too.

>>  * the Steering Committee elected knurd as its chairmen; stahnma will
>> act as backup
> Could we use Real Names instead of IRC nicks?  I know who knurd is but I
> don't know who stahnma is.

I tried that in the past and it makes stuff harder and time consuming to
write in my experience (I have the nicks from the meeting log already
and don't have to type them again or look out how peoples names are
spelled correctly). So I prefer to use nicks as writing summaries and
reports is boring enough already.

>>  * repotags -- some discussion in the meeting again. It looks like it
>> will we'll continue without repotags (final decision probably in next
>> weeks meeting, after this summary has been posted and discussed). If you
>> want repotags please *speak up now* and *help* to find a technical
>> solution that is not only fine for the EPEL Steering Committee, but also
>> acceptable for the Fedora Packaging Committee and FESCo -- from
>> discussions on list and on IRC it looks like that some members of those
>> groups tend to be against using repotags (see this weeks FESCo meeting
>> for example) or want to see something cooperation statements signed by
>> EPEL and 3rd party repos before they are willing to accept repotags.
> Just some clarification.  Yes, FESCo overall didn't see a good reason to
> use repotags.  If EPEL chooses to do so, FESCo won't stand in the way.

FYI: I was a bit against repotags in the past, but my position these
days after all this discussions is similar.

Or, to be more verbose: If someone works out the details on how to
realize repotags in Fedora then (depending on how the proposal looks
like) I'll likely abstain from a vote or might even support to use
repotags, as long as a simple "cp FC-6/foo.spec EL-5/" remains possible.

But I don't have the energy to work out the details. Anyone willing to
work them out?

> It would be unfortunate, however, if EPEL and FESCo packaging guidelines
> diverged.

That what I want to prevent, too.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]