[fedora-arm] New Packages and Policy Questions

[omalleys at msu.edu]

Quoting Gordan Bobic <gordan at bobich.net>:

> Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Gordan Bobic <gordan at bobich.net> wrote:
>>> I have a question on policies of how and whether Fedora-ARM patches are
>>> rolled back into rawhide. The reason I ask is because I see overlap
>>> between the required ARM specific patches between F11 and F12. What is
>>> the policy for rolling these patches back into upstream and (more
>>> importantly in case upstream is slow/reluctant to accept them) rawhide?
>>
>> In a lot of cases the people dealing with the issues have the ability
>> to commit the fixes themselves so as to be able to push them directly
>> upstream where necessary.
>
> Is there a formal procedure for that? My concern is that this process
> doesn't seem to work out in a timely and positive fashion in a
> significant number of cases (otherwise we wouldn't have that big a
> required patch overlap between Fedora releases on ARM).

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines


>>> Also, what is the policy on new packages? Specifically, I found myself
>>> in need of openssl098k compatibility package (need to run some binaries
>>> from F11). This is pretty trivial to come up with (change the package
>>> name from openssl-0.9.8k to openssl098k-0.9.8k in the spec file and
>>> re-tar the openssl tar ball to extract to openssl098k-0.9.8k directory
>>> instead of openssl-0.9.8k directory), but what I wanted to ask if
>>> whether there is some kind of a policy for including things like this in
>>> the main distro. It is likely that this would be useful to other people
>>> who are less willing/able to roll their own packages.

Will your packages compile against openssl 1.0.0x?
>>
>> The policy on new packages is that they have to be in upstream Fedora.
>
> How does one get a package into upstream Fedora?
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/NewPackageProcess

At least I think this is what you are looking for.