Earlier this week on the CentOS devel list I proposed an interim method to help make it easier for centos contributions to flow into epel.
Essentially the proposal is that CentOS would like a 'curator' group (name can be determined later) similar to the wrangler's group.
Members of this group would be responsible for shepherding packages designated by the various SIG efforts in CentOS through the process of getting these packages in epel. This means that rather than having an individual owner, packages would have group ownership. Members of this group will be required to have access to make package modifications on the CentOS side so that they meet the packaging standards for EPEL. Additionally, it would help to have an EPEL proven packager as part of the group as well in order to help make things move a little quicker.
Would this be acceptable from an EPEL standpoint? What would be required from an EPEL perspective to make this happen?
Hi Jim.
On 09/25/2014 04:36 PM, Jim Perrin wrote:
Earlier this week on the CentOS devel list I proposed an interim method to help make it easier for centos contributions to flow into epel.
Essentially the proposal is that CentOS would like a 'curator' group (name can be determined later) similar to the wrangler's group.
Members of this group would be responsible for shepherding packages designated by the various SIG efforts in CentOS through the process of getting these packages in epel. This means that rather than having an individual owner, packages would have group ownership. Members of this group will be required to have access to make package modifications on the CentOS side so that they meet the packaging standards for EPEL. Additionally, it would help to have an EPEL proven packager as part of the group as well in order to help make things move a little quicker.
Would this be acceptable from an EPEL standpoint? What would be required from an EPEL perspective to make this happen?
EPEL is for RHEL, Scientific Linux, Oracle Enterprice other than CentOS; would we need of special "curator" group for every distro? CentOS contributions could flow simply by taking part on EPEL and by integrating any special (previously discussed) packaging need .
Excerpts from Antonio Trande's message of 2014-09-25 17:15:45 +0200:
Hi Jim.
On 09/25/2014 04:36 PM, Jim Perrin wrote:
Earlier this week on the CentOS devel list I proposed an interim method to help make it easier for centos contributions to flow into epel.
Essentially the proposal is that CentOS would like a 'curator' group (name can be determined later) similar to the wrangler's group.
Members of this group would be responsible for shepherding packages designated by the various SIG efforts in CentOS through the process of getting these packages in epel. This means that rather than having an individual owner, packages would have group ownership. Members of this group will be required to have access to make package modifications on the CentOS side so that they meet the packaging standards for EPEL. Additionally, it would help to have an EPEL proven packager as part of the group as well in order to help make things move a little quicker.
Would this be acceptable from an EPEL standpoint? What would be required from an EPEL perspective to make this happen?
EPEL is for RHEL, Scientific Linux, Oracle Enterprice other than CentOS; would we need of special "curator" group for every distro? CentOS contributions could flow simply by taking part on EPEL and by integrating any special (previously discussed) packaging need .
This would be my take also, getting pkgs into EPEL is a pretty well defined process as is a becoming a packager. I don't see an extra step/group is needed within CentOS is needed.
Group ownership of pkgs in EPEL? So many people can own a package already. I am unsure what the 'wrangler' group example is.
On 09/25/2014 10:28 AM, Steve Traylen wrote:
Excerpts from Antonio Trande's message of 2014-09-25 17:15:45 +0200:
Hi Jim.
On 09/25/2014 04:36 PM, Jim Perrin wrote:
Earlier this week on the CentOS devel list I proposed an interim method to help make it easier for centos contributions to flow into epel.
Essentially the proposal is that CentOS would like a 'curator' group (name can be determined later) similar to the wrangler's group.
Members of this group would be responsible for shepherding packages designated by the various SIG efforts in CentOS through the process of getting these packages in epel. This means that rather than having an individual owner, packages would have group ownership. Members of this group will be required to have access to make package modifications on the CentOS side so that they meet the packaging standards for EPEL. Additionally, it would help to have an EPEL proven packager as part of the group as well in order to help make things move a little quicker.
Would this be acceptable from an EPEL standpoint? What would be required from an EPEL perspective to make this happen?
EPEL is for RHEL, Scientific Linux, Oracle Enterprice other than CentOS; would we need of special "curator" group for every distro? CentOS contributions could flow simply by taking part on EPEL and by integrating any special (previously discussed) packaging need .
I don't see that this prevents any other groups from participating at all. The idea is for the benefit of the other groups as well, as they ultimately would get a larger package set to use.
This would be my take also, getting pkgs into EPEL is a pretty well defined process as is a becoming a packager. I don't see an extra step/group is needed within CentOS is needed.
It is defined. It's also perceived as cumbersome, laborious and painful, and so many would-be contributors don't even attempt to contribute. This is simply a proposal allowing those who are willing to act in place of the original packagers to help contribute. This benefits every group mentioned above, instead of keeping packages within the project.
Group ownership of pkgs in EPEL? So many people can own a package already. I am unsure what the 'wrangler' group example is.
Why list 10 owners when you can list a single group?
Wranglers discussed and defined during last week's meeting: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-devel/2014-September/010153.h...
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:47:43AM -0500, Jim Perrin wrote:
This would be my take also, getting pkgs into EPEL is a pretty well defined process as is a becoming a packager. I don't see an extra step/group is needed within CentOS is needed.
It is defined. It's also perceived as cumbersome, laborious and painful, and so many would-be contributors don't even attempt to contribute. This is simply a proposal allowing those who are willing to act in place of the original packagers to help contribute.
If the packages are going to meet Fedora's guidelines, the current process is not as bad as it might be perceived. If someone is qualified and motivated it is very easy to become package maintainer and if you have several people who want to contribute they can easily review each others packages to show that they are qualified and I am very confident that it won't be hard to find a sponsor then.
Regards Till
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Till Maas opensource@till.name wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:47:43AM -0500, Jim Perrin wrote:
This would be my take also, getting pkgs into EPEL is a pretty well defined process as is a becoming a packager. I don't see an extra step/group is needed within CentOS is needed.
It is defined. It's also perceived as cumbersome, laborious and painful, and so many would-be contributors don't even attempt to contribute. This is simply a proposal allowing those who are willing to act in place of the original packagers to help contribute.
If the packages are going to meet Fedora's guidelines, the current process is not as bad as it might be perceived. If someone is qualified and motivated it is very easy to become package maintainer and if you have several people who want to contribute they can easily review each others packages to show that they are qualified and I am very confident that it won't be hard to find a sponsor then.
The other thing that comes to my mind is some sort of "EPEL ambassadors" (for lack of a better term) - Fedora packagers who are interested in sponsoring new contributors who are very EPEL-focused. I'd be willing to help with that.
I get that it can feel cumbersome, laborious and painful sometimes, particularly in comparison to throwing something on GitHub. The big question for Fedora's future is "how do we become less bureaucratic while still maintaining quality - and do it in a timeframe that still keeps us relevant to the world."
Anyways, in the meantime there are are people here who are willing to do some hand-holding through our current processes.
- Ken
On 09/25/2014 12:27 PM, Till Maas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 11:47:43AM -0500, Jim Perrin wrote:
This would be my take also, getting pkgs into EPEL is a pretty well defined process as is a becoming a packager. I don't see an extra step/group is needed within CentOS is needed.
It is defined. It's also perceived as cumbersome, laborious and painful, and so many would-be contributors don't even attempt to contribute. This is simply a proposal allowing those who are willing to act in place of the original packagers to help contribute.
If the packages are going to meet Fedora's guidelines, the current process is not as bad as it might be perceived. If someone is qualified and motivated it is very easy to become package maintainer and if you have several people who want to contribute they can easily review each others packages to show that they are qualified and I am very confident that it won't be hard to find a sponsor then.
I don't disagree. It's partly the perception that's keeping people from attempting it. I'm hoping that this would provide a method to help smooth that perception over.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 09:36:07AM -0500, Jim Perrin wrote:
Members of this group would be responsible for shepherding packages designated by the various SIG efforts in CentOS through the process of getting these packages in epel. This means that rather than having an individual owner, packages would have group ownership. Members of this group will be required to have access to make package modifications on the CentOS side so that they meet the packaging standards for EPEL. Additionally, it would help to have an EPEL proven packager as part of the group as well in order to help make things move a little quicker.
Would this be acceptable from an EPEL standpoint? What would be required from an EPEL perspective to make this happen?
Can you please be more detailed about who should get which privileges and how? E.g. do you want to become the new members packagers without being properly sponsored?
Also do you plan to not use Fedora's git repository to build packages from?
Technically, support is already possible by just becoming packagers, since there is also group ownership in the package database.
Regards Till
On 09/25/2014 12:22 PM, Till Maas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 09:36:07AM -0500, Jim Perrin wrote:
Members of this group would be responsible for shepherding packages designated by the various SIG efforts in CentOS through the process of getting these packages in epel. This means that rather than having an individual owner, packages would have group ownership. Members of this group will be required to have access to make package modifications on the CentOS side so that they meet the packaging standards for EPEL. Additionally, it would help to have an EPEL proven packager as part of the group as well in order to help make things move a little quicker.
Would this be acceptable from an EPEL standpoint? What would be required from an EPEL perspective to make this happen?
Can you please be more detailed about who should get which privileges and how? E.g. do you want to become the new members packagers without being properly sponsored?
Very much no. Members of this group would be submitting packages on behalf of those in the CentOS community who don't wish to do so themselves. If the package doesn't measure up, it gets no special treatment and would be fixed prior to acceptance.
Members of this group would be required to go through the usual sponsorship/submission practices, etc.
Also do you plan to not use Fedora's git repository to build packages from?
These packages may not necessarily start off in fedora's git, but per EPEL policy they should end up there if they're to be built for epel. I would imagine most are likely already in fedora's git as the upstream, and would require only branch+patch ownership.
Technically, support is already possible by just becoming packagers, since there is also group ownership in the package database.
Yes, but I'm told this is not generally common practice, which is why I wanted to bring it up here first to make sure it's not a problem.
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Antonio Trande -
Jim Perrin -
Ken Dreyer -
Steve Traylen -
Till Maas