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 maintaining your own package or if we drop that outdated ownership model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.
--a