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

Re: FESCo meeting summary for 2009-07-31



On 08/01/2009 02:17 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:

> This is part of the problem.  Perhaps the developers don't want to be bothered
> with setting up a project hosting facility for something they to-date have
> been releasing in a manner they find sufficient.  

This is a bit of circular logic. They find it sufficient because the
packaging guidelines explicitly added a exception to accommodate this.
Otherwise they would have bothered to do so.

I don't see why they should
> be forced to just to be part of Fedora.

Again, they are not random developers. They are part of Fedora Project.

> If we want to encourage and recommend that, great!  But saying it's required
> when they are providing sufficient means of getting the source to the package
> (in a Fedora perferred form even!) is a bit odd to me.

So a special exception doesn't sound at all? Do you think that is
encouraging them to setup a proper project hosting?

> No.  That is part of the problem with your proposal.  You have targetted RH
> or Fedora packages that do this.  If some other package only distributes via
> SRPM (or .deb, or ebuild), they aren't required to comply.  Why force these
> RH/Fedora packages to do something that we don't force other packages to?

I am not the one targeting Red Hat or Fedora packages.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#We_are_Upstream

They were targeted in the exception which I am asking FESCo to drop.

Rahul


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