bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

Miloslav Trma─Ź mitr at volny.cz
Tue Jun 18 16:44:54 UTC 2013

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Jeffrey Ollie <jeff at ocjtech.us> wrote:
> The tl;dr summary is that there shouldn't be a single
> standard for what we expect of packagers, especially in the context of
> what to expect when bugs are filed against their packages on Red Hat's
> bugzilla.

That's certainly true, with an open source project and volunteers
contributing we can't require _packagers_ to commit to a specific
workload.  However, I think there should be a single standard for what
we expect of _packages_.

That's not to say a package that doesn't meet that standard must not
be allowed in Fedora - still, I would very much like to achieve a
consensus that high-quality, qualified, in-Fedora maintenance is
desirable.  Then we can perhaps discuss ways to get closer to this
desirable state, either by expanding the set of contributors or with
our existing community.

For example, right now the easiest way to become a Fedora packager is
still to learn RPM packaging (only) and add a new package (which will,
by now, fairly often be something obscure with a few hundred of
users), when quite a few existing packages with hundreds of thousands
of users could use much help with debugging/bug fixing/programming,
with fairly little focus on RPM.

More information about the devel mailing list