Package submission process

[Ian MacGregor]

Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On 10/14/05, Ian MacGregor <contact at ardchoille.org> wrote:
> 
>>  My name is Ian MacGregor and I have been using Fedora since FC1.
>>Fedora is the best distro available and I thank those involved for its
>>creation. I create packages for apps when I find an app that I like
>>which is not on Fedora Extras or Livna - I enjoy building packages. I
>>have been trying to become a Fedora Extras contributor but I cannot
>>understand the 20-step process here:
>>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you feel this way. But I think you have greatly over-simplified
> what is actually necessary. In your six step world.. how do you gain
> access to the cvs system?
There doesn't need to be a cvs system setup for packages, IMO.
I create a package, tell the reviewer it's available, reviewer 
reviews/tests the package. If the package doesn't pass, I take care of 
any problems and repackage, if the package passes, the reviewer submits 
the package to Extras.

> Who creates the cvs account for you? steps
> 8-13 in the Extras process detail exactly how you gain access to the
> cvs system so you can actually import the package. If you dont have
> access to the cvs system... how exactly do you import the package?   I
> don't see you addressing this issue.
> 
> In your six step world.. how do you specify which fedora release you
> want to build a package for in the build system? Fc3? Fc4?
> development? how do you pick which branch to build for?
The package name would have the version of Fedora in it:
FC4 packages = packagename-1.0-fc4.i386.rpm
FC4 devel packages = packagename-1.0-fc4-devel.i386.rpm

> Its not so simple as saying "build for all"..dependancies can change
> from Core release to Core release so some packages won't build or work
> correctly on fc3 but may for fc4. Istanbul for example.. only works
> for fedora development because of a dependancy that is only available
> in fedora development right now. Steps 16-19 give the details on how
> to pick which release branches to build for.  I dont see you
> addressing this issue.
FC4 .src.rpm's should only be rebuilt on FC4, likewise for FC3.

> 
> In your six step world.. how do you automate the creation of a
> bugzilla component so users of that package have a place to report
> bugs?
If the reviewer had done their job (reviewing/testing packages), there 
shouldn't be any bugs, so a bugzilla account wouldn't be necessary.

I have installed Fedora on over 70 machines over the last two years and 
I have never encountered a situation where any of my .src.rpm/.rpm 
packages have had any problems installing.

> Step 15 details how this is done in the Extras process. It is
> important to make sure that users have a place to file bugs. I don't
> see you addressing this issue.
> 
> None of these issues can just be ignored..there must be a process by
> which people gain cvs access, create release branches and generate a
> bugzilla listing for the package. If you have serious thoughts on how
> to streamline the process in a way that still makes sure those items
> get dealt with feel free to elaborate on your ideas.
I was not complaining, and please accept my appologies if my post 
conveyed such a notion. I love Fedora and will continue to run it as 
long as it is developed.

I just feel that there are items in the process that are unnecessary or 
that some items can be changed that would eliminate other items.
However, I feel this is already falling upon deaf ears because often 
times it happens that some are so set in their ways that they end up 
with a closed mind and refuse to accept change.

My packages have always worked for myself and others, so I must be doing 
something right. I won't post anymore on this subject unless asked.

Ian MacGregor

> 
> 
> -jef
>