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

Re: [Fedora-packaging] package review template



On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 09:17 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 12:49:17PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Oh, how I hate such vague accusations. Ralf! Please tell us exactly who
> >> you're referring to and what *exactly* makes you think they have no
> >> clue.
> >
> > I have the same feeling than Ralf, some reviewer just do superficial
> > reviewing without really looking at the relevant details. I won't tell
> > names. I also think that it was much less the case in the past, say,
> > roughly in the extras days.
> 
> Are there any specific deficiencies you find particularly troubling?
Yes, low quality and/or carelessly packaged packages making it in to
Fedora.

>   I
> suppose you can't really post links if you don't want to name names,
Right, I do not want to post names, here.

>  but
> could you characterize something in general terms?

This is difficult to answer - Let me try it this way:

The background behind reviews and the sponsorship model had been
"quality of packaging". From this, the FPG had been developed, aiming at
"best practices" to improve quality of packaging, quality of packages,
seamless integration into the distro ... etc.

This basically works, except that this has attracted

* people who take the FPG as a "law" and are trying to make a career as
"auxiliary/volunteer law enforcement guard/officer". For them, the
"regulations" are the objective, not the packages nor the distro.

* "mere bureaucrats". People who need forms and regulations for
everything, everywhere, but don't think about what they are doing. For
then, "the forms" are the objective, not the packages nor the distro.

Note: I am not talking about diverging individual opinions or personal
preferences during reviews, nor am I referring to "newcomer/newbie
reviews". I am referring to people who mix up the actual purpose of the
reviews with the review process itself.

> > That being said, this is not really relevant to the issue here, I mean,
> > template or not this issue will remain. And I think that I was in the
> > category of the people who 'have no clue' when I did my first
> > packages...
> >
> > Maybe the sponsor should look over sponsoree shoulder for some time
> > until the packager is knowledgable enough about packaging that he can
> > do reviews with an understanding of what he is doing, and not applying
> > some cookbook recipes (like look at rpmlint and it's done).
> >
> > This is not an easy issue, though, especially since many veteran
> > packagers from the beginning of fedora extras don't seem to show a lot
> > of activity these days in the reviews.

My reasons of not participating into reviews as much as I once did are:

* Fedora bureaucracy and Fedora infrastructure issues have reached an
extend, maintaining my packages in Fedora consumes up all time I have
available for contributions to Fedora => Not much time left for reviews.

* Most of the packages, which have been submitted in recent past, are
mostly non-interesting to me. Most of the packages I am interested in
are part of Fedora.

* My general interest in the Fedora project and the Fedora distro have
decreased over all these years. Fedora once had been an exciting
project, but the way things have evolved are gradually driving me away.
=> I unfroze activities, I had suspended due Fedora (e.g. contributing
to 3rd party repos).

Ralf



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