Insight meeting this week
mmcgrath at redhat.com
Tue Jun 22 19:04:49 UTC 2010
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 03:10:40PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 11:53:46AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 10:48 AM, David Nalley <david at gnsa.us> wrote:
> > >> > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> I need to work out with Mike on that part to make sure I am not
> > >> >> causing any issues by being sole point of contact. After that I need
> > >> >> to work on getting some RPM packages so that insight possibly works on
> > >> >> staging again.
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> > What do you need RPMs of?
> > >>
> > >> Make sure that
> > >> zikula-module-fedora-fasauth-0.3-2.el5.fedora.infra.noarch.rpm is
> > >> the latest one of those,
> > >
> > > Would this be 0.4 instead, which is the branch I just created based on
> > > the fixes that mateo collected?
> > Quite probably. I have been treating the packages as black boxes for
> > better or for worse.
> I could be wrong -- but I think that packages dealing with FAS
> authentication aren't usually published in the general repositories.
> David Nalley provides SRPMs at: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/
> The specfile in the SRPM will probably require a few changes for a
> 0.4-1 release, since mateo rearranged the tree in the git repository
> in a more logical fashion. Do we know who's going to do that?
This is correct. For stuff that is generally only going to be used by us,
we decided it best not to clutter up the Fedora repo. But anything that
could feasibly be used by others (like the non-FAS code) should probably
be packaged if it has an actual upstream and such.
More information about the logistics