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

Re: packages without internet source in fedora



On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 02:50:21PM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> 
> Just to be clear....you want a distro-specific point of view..about a
> distro-agnostic coordination process when packages across
> distributions fork due to a dead upstream.
> The gods of irony are pleased.
> 
> Anything more than the following as a Fedora policy is needless micromanagement:
> 
> 0) Oh crap... the stated upstream for a package you maintain is dead.
> Decide if the package should be orphaned or not. Set a Fedora tracking
> ticket indicating a dead upstream for a component.
> 
> 1) Not orphaned? Look around and see if other distros are using a
> common defacto upstream. Use the defacto upstream if it exists and
> encourage them to formalize their commitment as an official upstream
> to begin integrating distro specific forking.  Clear the Fedora
> tracking ticket with a comment.
> 
> 2) If not, invite other distro maintainers to have a discussion about
> how to formalize a common upstream to begin the unforking process. If
> everyone can agree on a common upstream, use that and clear the Fedora
> tracking ticket with a comment referencing the discussion for the new
> upstream.  Recommend using freedesktop's distribution list as neutral
> territory for the discussion if needed.  Though if you have to have
> neutral territory to hold a discussion, then i daresay that's a sign
> that its going to be a pretty tough negotiation to reach a consensus.
> 
> 3) If consensus  can't be reached on how to build a common upstream...
> choose whatever distribution fork you feel best meets the needs of
> Fedora and use it as the upstream going forward.  If you have to take
> over as upstream developer of a fork...setup whatever hosting instance
> you feel is best as an upstream location. Clear the Fedora project
> ticket with a comment referencing the failed discussion on how to find
> a common upstream.
> 
> What matters is that a Fedora maintainer make the best effort to avoid
> unnecessarily maintaining a forked codebase.  But if it has to be
> done, then they have the freedom to setup the parameters of that
> upstream project however they like.  Being able to reference a
> credible attempt at creating a common upstream, should satisfy any
> need for a 'don't be evil' review of a maintainer's actions on a
> case-by-case basis.

Looks good to me.

--
Pat


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