On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 12:04 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
> After hacking a simple tool which provides a GUI for a
repository file
> it's possible to create repository packages complete with desktop and
> appdata file. I have some 5-10 such repository packages under way, my
> plan is to push them into rpmfusion.
"RPM Fusion follows the Fedora packaging guidelines, make sure
you've
read and understood these:
Naming Guidelines
"Configuration for package managers in Fedora MUST ONLY
reference the
official Fedora repositories in their default enabled and disabled state
(see the yum repo configuration in the fedora-release package for the
canonical list). Unofficial and third-party repositories that contain
only packages that it is legal for us to direct people to in Fedora (see
the Forbidden items and Licensing:Main pages for an explanation of what
is legal) may be shipped in %{_docdir}. The idea is that the system
administrator would need to explicitly copy the configuration file from
doc into the proper location on the filesystem if they want to enable
the repository."
Presumably one is to s/Fedora/RPMFusion and Fedora/g/ when reading
that
as applying to Fusion, but still, Fusion's policies would appear to
forbid you to ship packages that contain 'active' external repository
configuration.
> If there will be a way for users to aggregate appdata from
different
> sources such as rpmfusion (don't fully really understand this process
> right now) users will be able to search and find also non-free items
> as long there is a packaged repository for them. It should work out of
> the box right now using old-school tools based on package metadata.
> Not ideal, but perhaps something.
So I found this point interesting in thinking about these issues
this
morning. There was a post of Hughesie's (I think) in another thread
which was also illuminating: it suggested the design of Software is to
be a generic 'software' installer - to provide as much 'software' from
as many sources as possible, under the 'it's all just software' theory,
guess.
I think the assumption that this is obviously the right design is
interesting, because I strongly disagree - not just for legal or policy
reasons, but because that's most definitely *not* what I want. I
cut]
-------
Sorry for badly formatted reply - lost the original in my mailbox and
only have this web UI right now :(.
Anyway, I have submitted [1], a rpmfusion review request for
dropbox-repo. A real case should hopefully provide a sound base for
remaining things to discuss.
--alec
[1]
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3152
On 1/27/14, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 01/27/2014 05:36 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
> So without, unfortunately, the time to read through reams of stuff
> on this and with my user hat on (don't think I've seen any
> discussion of this on the users list), if it means how fedora
> actually works is better thought out then that's a good thing, but
> does this mean there will be things unavailable on some 'products'
> that are not on others? At the minute you install a spin and can
> add whatever other packages. That's great if you want to do
> something like set up a quick web server for testing or stream some
> music without creating VMs everywhere. It sounds a bit like this
> plan may end up with finding you can't do X on a Fedora system
> because you installed the wrong flavour.
>
No.
The Products will be defining an environment and a standard install
set. They may have separate initial *installation* repositories if
they need to provide different options to Anaconda, but beyond that
the intent is for all of the Products to continue to draw from the
same store of packages together.
If (for example) we got ourselves into a situation where you couldn't
install Fedora Server and then also install the GNOME desktop
environment on that Server, this would be considered a major bug and
one that we would need to reconcile immediately.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlLmWdMACgkQeiVVYja6o6P0twCfRk46ssphyt3+iZUnbh/t4TrG
+FEAoINANDTuTrd+jEY8rFLydsna8obW
=bmho
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct:
http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct