On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 04/26/2012 02:30 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Alec Leamas<leamas.alec(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 04/26/2012 01:18 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
>>>
>>> No dia 26 de Abril de 2012 01:08, Stephen Gallagher
>>> <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> escreveu:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 2012-04-25 at 22:43 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not just drop the sponsorship process and just raise the barrier
>>>>> of
>>>>> entry for the packaging process instead?
>>>>>
>>>>> Like having to have been a comaintainer for atleast one release
cycle
>>>>> then completed x many reviews in the next etc. ( essentally what you
>>>>> propose there just without the "sponsor" ) and finally you
are
>>>>> maintaining your own package or if we drop that outdated ownership
>>>>> model
>>>>> we have in place are free to roam "free" in the packaging
community
>>>>> and
>>>>> assist when ever, where ever possible...
>>>>
>>>> This approach completely disregards the very common example of
"I'm an
>>>> upstream maintainer of a cool project. I want to package and maintain
>>>> it
>>>> for Fedora." Under your approach, they'd first have to become
involved
>>>> in other projects before being allowed to add their package. This is
>>>> unacceptable and would basically guarantee that no upstream would
>>>> willingly involve itself with Fedora.
>>>
>>> I was asked by a upstream to maintain a package for Fedora due to the
>>> high demand it has from Fedora users, unfortunatly I backed down from
>>> the proposal for several purposes:
>>>
>> [cut]
>>
>> Still, besides this sad experience, isn't this the kind of cooperation we
>> should encourage? Now and then those great people with great apps want
>> their
>> app in Fedora. Instead of saying "Wonderful, welcome", we send them a
>> list
>> of an actually quite complicated set of requirements to become a
>> packager.
>> But those people don't want that, they just want their application
>> packaged. And although they havn't the packaging skills, they know their
>> app. And that's actually a damned good starting point.
>>
>> What I'm talking about is to tell these great people that there are two
>> ways to get their app packaged. One way is to become a packager, and so
>> far
>> this discussion is about that path,. Obviously, the requirements here are
>> beyond knowing an app, though.
>>
>> The other way should be to find, persuade (bribe?) a packager to take
>> care
>> of the package in cooperation with the developer. As I understand it,
>> there
>> is no such path today(?) I think it's a pity, because the cooperation
>> between a developer and a packager is actually a good way of doing it.
>
> I've been asked to package things before, by friends, colleagues,
> upstream devs, etc. My response it typically, "Oh, neat, I'd never
> heard of that!"<rushes off to make an RPM and submit a review> I
> know we have a wishlist, but I'm not sure it's being used by
> non-packagers, or packagers for that matter.
>
Which is fine if you are friend, colleague or an upstream developer knowing
about you. Not all are ;)
Seems that when this happens, it's going the informal way - which is good.
But someone who just tries to read the webpages, will eventually submit a
bugzilla package review request. And in many cases things have gone terribly
wrong then IMHO.
I might be totally out in the blue, but my feeling is that there's a lot of
information on "How to become a Fedora packager" - but very little about
"How do I get my package into Fedora?". If this is true, it might possibly
reflect that this issue havn't been thought of as needed.
Being a newbie I havn't seen the fedora wishlist (but rpmfusions's). The
first thing which strikes me when I check it is that the there's no link to
the person who submitted the request. For me, this is essential - having a
motivated contact upstream makes a difference.
Yes! Exactly. I'd love to see this fixed. What if we had a simple
process where someone could file a BZ with a component of Wishlist or
something, and we could direct this sort of thing there? Then
existing packagers could check it out, file a review BZ blocking that
Wishlist bug, and the submitter therefore would be reachable, and
could follow the whole process. Also, since BZ is searchable, people
could search it before submitting a Wishlist or Review, to see if it's
already out there being worked on, if it was tried and failed, why
that might be, etc.
I'm not sure if this needs a Whole New Process, or simply a new link
and BZ component.
Thoughts?
-J
--a
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/
------------------------------------------------
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie