potential candidates for contribution

[Rudolf Kastl]

Am Donnerstag, den 17.03.2005, 12:25 +0100 schrieb Iago Rubio:
> On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 11:15 +0100, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 17.03.2005, 10:33 +0100 schrieb Iago Rubio:
> > > On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 09:33 +0100, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
> > > > Am Donnerstag, den 17.03.2005, 02:04 -0500 schrieb Ignacio Vazquez-
> [snip]
> > > > > Doesn't use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%buildroot consistently.
> > > > 
> > > > is that really an issue?
> > > 
> > > It's in the Packaging Guidelines, so yes it's an issue.
> > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#head-
> > > d0ada6130cf40be1244d34cc44fc38d34dd00db8
> > 
> > ya i just asked that question for the trivial reason that doesnt make a
> > difference at all besides some aestetic value ;).
> > id see more sense if one of the styles would be preferred else its a mix
> > up again repo wide. 
> 
> I don't see no pros nor cons using one or another, but I'm sure for QA
> will be better to follow the current guidelines.
> 
> As example, someone making QA on a lengthy spec file should want to
> track where $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is used, and he could use egrep to check
> it. 
> 
> It will be much easier if he knows only one macro is being used.
> 
> > > [snip]
> > > 
> > > > > > 3. flightgear - 3d flight simulator
> > > > > 
> > > > > simgear not available from Core or Extras.
> > > > available from newrpms see above
> > > 
> > > I really don't think the availability of a dependency on newrpms have
> > > anything to do with Fedora Extras.
> > > 
> > > As I said, I think it will be much better to add first those
> > > dependencies to Extras, as without them the packages you mentioned are
> > > useless and should not be added.
> >
> > librarys without applications are as useless as applications without
> > librarys. So i thought if  youd add a library you need a reason for
> > adding the library? or am i wrong?
> 
> Nope, completely agree.
> 
> > If you read the initial mail the dependencys are part of the whole deal.
> 
> Yes, sorry. I missed this in your initial mail.
> 
> > maybe i should list em too... thought that was trivial.
> 
> I'm sure it could help if you post all packages you're willing to
> maintain, and the requirements you are - also - willing to maintain.
> 
> This way any reviewer could follow the dependency chain to check if
> those packages will fit in Extras.

well i tried to hold the initial candidates low and show the focus.
since scorched3d is already in extras there are 2 left. In the next days
i will publish an updated list. i am sorry but i had no net for 2 days
due to isp related issues.

I will also upload and link the specs seperatly for those projects (and
their deps).

aswell as i have to sign up officially to look for sponsorship.

regards,
rudolf kastl