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

Re: Review Request: jss - Java Security Services (bz#230262)

Margaret Lum wrote:
Warren Togami wrote:
Right, unsigned in Fedora. Proprietary or 3rd party apps needing a signed JAR would need to provide it from a separate source. Can you confirm that it could be parallel installed without much trouble?
There won't be any need for this, as developers can sign at their own discretion.

Red Hat (the company) could (pending legal approval) choose to proceed with this as part of an internal product. But as the rules stand today, Fedora cannot ship this signed.
We will ship this UNsigned, in Fedora.  Can approval be re-evaluated?

Right, yes it can.
Please let me know what the next steps to working this through the approval committee expediently. I want to make sure there aren't details omitted that would hinder this package from being approved.


There is no approval committee. Inclusion of the package only requires package review approval of ANYBODY. The reviewer could even be another member of the same team of the submitter of the package review.

Please familiarize yourself with this process document.

Many dozens of java packages were included in Fedora in the past few months in this fashion, where a team within Red Hat had separate people act as package submitter and package reviewer. I don't remember all their names at the moment, though I believe rafaels@ and dbhole@ were among the RH participants involved with inclusion of those many java packages.

If you have deadlines for business reasons to get packages into Fedora or EPEL, please don't wait for unaccountable external volunteers. Any team has the power to get a package in without the need for external participation or approval.

Please let us know here on this list if you have further questions.

Warren Togami
wtogami redhat com

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