From stickster at gmail.com Fri Aug 1 01:54:41 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:54:41 -0400 Subject: When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <4891CDF8.8020905@kanarip.com> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> <4890EEEB.2080605@kanarip.com> <1217458166.5112.69.camel@victoria> <48916E35.3090903@kanarip.com> <1217506796.12970.26.camel@victoria> <4891CDF8.8020905@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <1217555681.21786.8.camel@victoria> > On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 16:36 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > >> Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark > >> policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case you > >> hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have built it > >> upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of your session > >> (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. non-public). Same > >> might apply to downstream vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare > >> used to distribute .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?) > >> > > > > This part I'm not so sure of. "Limited distribution" in an age of > > convenient bit-moving doesn't mean a whole lot. Rather, we should be > > working on automation for rebranding that makes the whole operation easy > > for anyone that wants to do it -- so the requirement is less onerous. > > > > Euh, right, "Limited distribution" is most definitely not the right > terminology, but I wouldn't want to force people (or ISVs for that > matter) that hand out Fedora media containing a demo or presentation, to > rebrand to the fullest because they add non-fedora content. Replacing > fedora-logos is reasonable, anything beyond makes them go to other > distributions to use or derive from. I think this *may* be fairly easy to solve in the Live image on USB case. The part of the file system outside the Live image is completely outside of what we call Fedora. Including presentation or demo material there doesn't affect the "Fedora-ness" of the Live image. I would think that any claim it did would be a little strange, because that would affect anyone who uses a Live USB and decides to store some data in that external space. This is just a preliminary thought. -- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From kanarip at kanarip.com Fri Aug 1 07:50:34 2008 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:50:34 +0200 Subject: When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <1217555681.21786.8.camel@victoria> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> <4890EEEB.2080605@kanarip.com> <1217458166.5112.69.camel@victoria> <48916E35.3090903@kanarip.com> <1217506796.12970.26.camel@victoria> <4891CDF8.8020905@kanarip.com> <1217555681.21786.8.camel@victoria> Message-ID: <4892C04A.4090308@kanarip.com> Paul W. Frields wrote: >> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 16:36 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >> Paul W. Frields wrote: >>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >>>> Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark >>>> policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case you >>>> hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have built it >>>> upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of your session >>>> (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. non-public). Same >>>> might apply to downstream vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare >>>> used to distribute .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?) >>>> >>> This part I'm not so sure of. "Limited distribution" in an age of >>> convenient bit-moving doesn't mean a whole lot. Rather, we should be >>> working on automation for rebranding that makes the whole operation easy >>> for anyone that wants to do it -- so the requirement is less onerous. >>> >> Euh, right, "Limited distribution" is most definitely not the right >> terminology, but I wouldn't want to force people (or ISVs for that >> matter) that hand out Fedora media containing a demo or presentation, to >> rebrand to the fullest because they add non-fedora content. Replacing >> fedora-logos is reasonable, anything beyond makes them go to other >> distributions to use or derive from. > > I think this *may* be fairly easy to solve in the Live image on USB > case. The part of the file system outside the Live image is completely > outside of what we call Fedora. Including presentation or demo material > there doesn't affect the "Fedora-ness" of the Live image. I would think > that any claim it did would be a little strange, because that would > affect anyone who uses a Live USB and decides to store some data in that > external space. This is just a preliminary thought. > Presentations, yes. Video demo's, yes. Placing a file on the desktop though is just as trivially impacting Fedora (eg. none at all) as placing it on the medium. Just a thought. Now I want to demo a failover cluster with FooApp failing over nice and clean. Or, I want to pull someone from the audience and boot his/her laptop to join a cluster (again FooApp). These demo's will be given all over Europe maybe, at events, private training sessions (where students take the CD/USB key home for further practice?), and partners and distributors. Just to clarify, this is what I had meant by using the word "demo" ;-) Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip From bkearney at redhat.com Fri Aug 1 11:01:42 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 07:01:42 -0400 Subject: When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <1217555681.21786.8.camel@victoria> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> <4890EEEB.2080605@kanarip.com> <1217458166.5112.69.camel@victoria> <48916E35.3090903@kanarip.com> <1217506796.12970.26.camel@victoria> <4891CDF8.8020905@kanarip.com> <1217555681.21786.8.camel@victoria> Message-ID: <4892ED16.2010707@redhat.com> Paul W. Frields wrote: >> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 16:36 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >> Paul W. Frields wrote: >>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >>>> Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark >>>> policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case you >>>> hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have built it >>>> upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of your session >>>> (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. non-public). Same >>>> might apply to downstream vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare >>>> used to distribute .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?) >>>> >>> This part I'm not so sure of. "Limited distribution" in an age of >>> convenient bit-moving doesn't mean a whole lot. Rather, we should be >>> working on automation for rebranding that makes the whole operation easy >>> for anyone that wants to do it -- so the requirement is less onerous. >>> >> Euh, right, "Limited distribution" is most definitely not the right >> terminology, but I wouldn't want to force people (or ISVs for that >> matter) that hand out Fedora media containing a demo or presentation, to >> rebrand to the fullest because they add non-fedora content. Replacing >> fedora-logos is reasonable, anything beyond makes them go to other >> distributions to use or derive from. > > I think this *may* be fairly easy to solve in the Live image on USB > case. The part of the file system outside the Live image is completely > outside of what we call Fedora. Including presentation or demo material > there doesn't affect the "Fedora-ness" of the Live image. I would think > that any claim it did would be a little strange, because that would > affect anyone who uses a Live USB and decides to store some data in that > external space. This is just a preliminary thought. We give them the powser to build any packages into the live-usb and appliances. So I would sugest that any trademark solution address the idea that friends of ferdora will be build these and we want them to say "I built this on Fedora" but not "This is fedora" -- bk From bkearney at redhat.com Fri Aug 1 11:02:49 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 07:02:49 -0400 Subject: When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <4892C04A.4090308@kanarip.com> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> <4890EEEB.2080605@kanarip.com> <1217458166.5112.69.camel@victoria> <48916E35.3090903@kanarip.com> <1217506796.12970.26.camel@victoria> <4891CDF8.8020905@kanarip.com> <1217555681.21786.8.camel@victoria> <4892C04A.4090308@kanarip.com> Message-ID: <4892ED59.1090809@redhat.com> Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > Paul W. Frields wrote: >>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 16:36 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >>> Paul W. Frields wrote: >>>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >>>>> Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark >>>>> policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in >>>>> case you hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you >>>>> have built it upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to >>>>> attendees of your session (which kinda equals to limited >>>>> distribution, e.g. non-public). Same might apply to downstream >>>>> vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare used to distribute >>>>> .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?) >>>>> >>>> This part I'm not so sure of. "Limited distribution" in an age of >>>> convenient bit-moving doesn't mean a whole lot. Rather, we should be >>>> working on automation for rebranding that makes the whole operation >>>> easy >>>> for anyone that wants to do it -- so the requirement is less onerous. >>>> >>> Euh, right, "Limited distribution" is most definitely not the right >>> terminology, but I wouldn't want to force people (or ISVs for that >>> matter) that hand out Fedora media containing a demo or presentation, >>> to rebrand to the fullest because they add non-fedora content. >>> Replacing fedora-logos is reasonable, anything beyond makes them go >>> to other distributions to use or derive from. >> >> I think this *may* be fairly easy to solve in the Live image on USB >> case. The part of the file system outside the Live image is completely >> outside of what we call Fedora. Including presentation or demo material >> there doesn't affect the "Fedora-ness" of the Live image. I would think >> that any claim it did would be a little strange, because that would >> affect anyone who uses a Live USB and decides to store some data in that >> external space. This is just a preliminary thought. >> > > Presentations, yes. Video demo's, yes. Placing a file on the desktop > though is just as trivially impacting Fedora (eg. none at all) as > placing it on the medium. Just a thought. > > Now I want to demo a failover cluster with FooApp failing over nice and > clean. Or, I want to pull someone from the audience and boot his/her > laptop to join a cluster (again FooApp). These demo's will be given all > over Europe maybe, at events, private training sessions (where students > take the CD/USB key home for further practice?), and partners and > distributors. > > Just to clarify, this is what I had meant by using the word "demo" ;-) > > Kind regards, Heck... why limit to demos? It could be that someone releases an open source Alfresco appliance for real use. -- bk From kanarip at kanarip.com Fri Aug 1 11:34:49 2008 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:34:49 +0200 Subject: When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <4892ED59.1090809@redhat.com> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> <4890EEEB.2080605@kanarip.com> <1217458166.5112.69.camel@victoria> <48916E35.3090903@kanarip.com> <1217506796.12970.26.camel@victoria> <4891CDF8.8020905@kanarip.com> <1217555681.21786.8.camel@victoria> <4892C04A.4090308@kanarip.com> <4892ED59.1090809@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4892F4D9.8060205@kanarip.com> Bryan Kearney wrote: > Heck... why limit to demos? It could be that someone releases an open > source Alfresco appliance for real use. > I'll take two examples; a collaborative, calendering and mail server solution (named "product" for convenience), and a (simple?) DHCP/DNS/Network appliance piece of hardware (named "appliance" for convenience). The obvious differences are: - demo'ing a product in a certain setup as opposed to releasing it, and - demo'ing a product that uses Linux as the (preferred?) operating system, as opposed to releasing that product, which usually doesn't come with the Linux operating system, let alone Fedora, and - demo'ing or releasing an appliance product (the completely different line of products), where the operating system doesn't actually matter or it wouldn't be an appliance in the first place. Take this with a grain of salt as we all know we're trying to first establish a "de-facto standard" for a minimal Base OS third parties can build their appliance on top of, while, from a different perspective, a real appliance is not a "yum install" the way we are used to within Fedora, and should involve recompiling the software for purposes such as optimization and stability. Kind of a moot point in this discussion, but I hope you appreciate where I see a difference between the two (eg. "product" and appliance). In the first two cases ("product") you don't care which distribution runs your demo you're just gonna want to take the most convenient (and I'd like to see Fedora have the upper hand there, from both the advertising, marketing as well as the potential revenue of ISV's getting involved in Fedora -just because we do things right this means revenue for all of FOSS), without requiring rebranding. In the latter case you do care which distribution you base the appliance on, and you do want to rebrand, no matter what the effort might involve. Still, Fedora should have the upper hand here in that it should be the overall easiest, but it's an entirely different target audience, with different demands, wishes, targets, audiences and products. Like I suggested, once we enable re-compilation of software, but even before, it is not Fedora anymore, and it's entirely different and we do want to require rebranding. I hope some of this makes sense I don't feel I'm able to make myself as clear as I want to. Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip From stickster at gmail.com Fri Aug 1 12:16:07 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 08:16:07 -0400 Subject: When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <4892ED16.2010707@redhat.com> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> <4890EEEB.2080605@kanarip.com> <1217458166.5112.69.camel@victoria> <48916E35.3090903@kanarip.com> <1217506796.12970.26.camel@victoria> <4891CDF8.8020905@kanarip.com> <1217555681.21786.8.camel@victoria> <4892ED16.2010707@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1217592967.5431.8.camel@victoria> On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 07:01 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote: > > Paul W. Frields wrote: > >> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 16:36 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > >> Paul W. Frields wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > >>>> Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark > >>>> policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case you > >>>> hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have built it > >>>> upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of your session > >>>> (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. non-public). Same > >>>> might apply to downstream vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare > >>>> used to distribute .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?) > >>>> > >>> This part I'm not so sure of. "Limited distribution" in an age of > >>> convenient bit-moving doesn't mean a whole lot. Rather, we should be > >>> working on automation for rebranding that makes the whole operation easy > >>> for anyone that wants to do it -- so the requirement is less onerous. > >>> > >> Euh, right, "Limited distribution" is most definitely not the right > >> terminology, but I wouldn't want to force people (or ISVs for that > >> matter) that hand out Fedora media containing a demo or presentation, to > >> rebrand to the fullest because they add non-fedora content. Replacing > >> fedora-logos is reasonable, anything beyond makes them go to other > >> distributions to use or derive from. > > > > I think this *may* be fairly easy to solve in the Live image on USB > > case. The part of the file system outside the Live image is completely > > outside of what we call Fedora. Including presentation or demo material > > there doesn't affect the "Fedora-ness" of the Live image. I would think > > that any claim it did would be a little strange, because that would > > affect anyone who uses a Live USB and decides to store some data in that > > external space. This is just a preliminary thought. > > > We give them the powser to build any packages into the live-usb and > appliances. So I would sugest that any trademark solution address the > idea that friends of ferdora will be build these and we want them to say > "I built this on Fedora" but not "This is fedora" That's exactly what the "Fedora Upstream"-type marking and the new guidelines are intended to do. -- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From bkearney at redhat.com Fri Aug 1 13:12:01 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:12:01 -0400 Subject: When to rebrand fedora? In-Reply-To: <1217592967.5431.8.camel@victoria> References: <48906C2E.2030802@redhat.com> <1217436166.18627.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890B78A.50600@redhat.com> <1217444151.18627.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4890BC9E.1020108@redhat.com> <4890EEEB.2080605@kanarip.com> <1217458166.5112.69.camel@victoria> <48916E35.3090903@kanarip.com> <1217506796.12970.26.camel@victoria> <4891CDF8.8020905@kanarip.com> <1217555681.21786.8.camel@victoria> <4892ED16.2010707@redhat.com> <1217592967.5431.8.camel@victoria> Message-ID: <48930BA1.3020301@redhat.com> Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 07:01 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote: >> Paul W. Frields wrote: >>>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 16:36 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >>>> Paul W. Frields wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:48 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: >>>>>> Since we're on the topic, I've also suggested on the "new trademark >>>>>> policy" wiki page[1], that rebranding should not be required in case you >>>>>> hand out a presentation or demo in case of an ISV, if you have built it >>>>>> upon Fedora and are simply handing it out to attendees of your session >>>>>> (which kinda equals to limited distribution, e.g. non-public). Same >>>>>> might apply to downstream vendors distributing appliances (like VMWare >>>>>> used to distribute .vmx files for some operating systems/distributions?) >>>>>> >>>>> This part I'm not so sure of. "Limited distribution" in an age of >>>>> convenient bit-moving doesn't mean a whole lot. Rather, we should be >>>>> working on automation for rebranding that makes the whole operation easy >>>>> for anyone that wants to do it -- so the requirement is less onerous. >>>>> >>>> Euh, right, "Limited distribution" is most definitely not the right >>>> terminology, but I wouldn't want to force people (or ISVs for that >>>> matter) that hand out Fedora media containing a demo or presentation, to >>>> rebrand to the fullest because they add non-fedora content. Replacing >>>> fedora-logos is reasonable, anything beyond makes them go to other >>>> distributions to use or derive from. >>> I think this *may* be fairly easy to solve in the Live image on USB >>> case. The part of the file system outside the Live image is completely >>> outside of what we call Fedora. Including presentation or demo material >>> there doesn't affect the "Fedora-ness" of the Live image. I would think >>> that any claim it did would be a little strange, because that would >>> affect anyone who uses a Live USB and decides to store some data in that >>> external space. This is just a preliminary thought. >> >> We give them the powser to build any packages into the live-usb and >> appliances. So I would sugest that any trademark solution address the >> idea that friends of ferdora will be build these and we want them to say >> "I built this on Fedora" but not "This is fedora" > > That's exactly what the "Fedora Upstream"-type marking and the new > guidelines are intended to do. > If you move them to "Unregulated" then I am happy with it! -- bk From smooge at gmail.com Fri Aug 1 22:33:11 2008 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 16:33:11 -0600 Subject: Trademarks in ISV packages. Message-ID: <80d7e4090808011533l229f81dbj77c1508be403f07e@mail.gmail.com> We just set up our own zimbra system here (sadly not with rpms) and I noticed that the default layout of the free version has several Yahoo trademarks on the screen. Will this cause problems with licensing or packaging? -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" From stickster at gmail.com Mon Aug 4 17:22:48 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:22:48 +0000 Subject: Trademarks in ISV packages. In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090808011533l229f81dbj77c1508be403f07e@mail.gmail.com> References: <80d7e4090808011533l229f81dbj77c1508be403f07e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1217870568.5282.136.camel@victoria> On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 16:33 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > We just set up our own zimbra system here (sadly not with rpms) and I > noticed that the default layout of the free version has several Yahoo > trademarks on the screen. Will this cause problems with licensing or > packaging? This is definitely something the packagers will have to look into. There are other packages in Fedora where our ability to retool the package may be limited by a trademark policy. Typically that's not a blocker issue, because it doesn't infringe on the right to modify and redistribute -- only to do so while still using someone's trademarks. As long as Yahoo!'s policy operates similarly we can live with it (though grudgingly). -- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From smooge at gmail.com Mon Aug 4 17:58:37 2008 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:58:37 -0600 Subject: Trademarks in ISV packages. In-Reply-To: <1217870568.5282.136.camel@victoria> References: <80d7e4090808011533l229f81dbj77c1508be403f07e@mail.gmail.com> <1217870568.5282.136.camel@victoria> Message-ID: <80d7e4090808041058m298dde51u6234d94b432f6647@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 16:33 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> We just set up our own zimbra system here (sadly not with rpms) and I >> noticed that the default layout of the free version has several Yahoo >> trademarks on the screen. Will this cause problems with licensing or >> packaging? > > This is definitely something the packagers will have to look into. > There are other packages in Fedora where our ability to retool the > package may be limited by a trademark policy. Typically that's not a > blocker issue, because it doesn't infringe on the right to modify and > redistribute -- only to do so while still using someone's trademarks. > As long as Yahoo!'s policy operates similarly we can live with it > (though grudgingly). > Well the big issue I can see is that the package is going to need some sort of LICENSE for trademarks to make sure that people realize that something is a trademark, and it can only be used for X,Y,Z things (eg promoting the Zimbra software but not say someones business, etc etc.). -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" From kwade at redhat.com Mon Aug 4 18:09:56 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:09:56 -0700 Subject: Trademarks in ISV packages. In-Reply-To: <80d7e4090808041058m298dde51u6234d94b432f6647@mail.gmail.com> References: <80d7e4090808011533l229f81dbj77c1508be403f07e@mail.gmail.com> <1217870568.5282.136.camel@victoria> <80d7e4090808041058m298dde51u6234d94b432f6647@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1217873396.13450.272.camel@calliope.phig.org> On Mon, 2008-08-04 at 11:58 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > Well the big issue I can see is that the package is going to need some > sort of LICENSE for trademarks to make sure that people realize that > something is a trademark, and it can only be used for X,Y,Z things (eg > promoting the Zimbra software but not say someones business, etc > etc.). I presume that is something normal to watch for in the packaging process, but it seems especially relevant to ISVs to consider. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg key : AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From bkearney at redhat.com Fri Aug 8 11:34:15 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 07:34:15 -0400 Subject: [Fwd: [Thincrust-devel] Fedora Feature Request Appliance Building] Message-ID: <489C2F37.6080700@redhat.com> David Huff is working on an "Appliance Building" feature for F10. He is looking for input on the feature, please see the email below and send any comments his way. Thanks! -- bk -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Thincrust-devel] Fedora Feature Request Appliance Building Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:30:47 -0400 From: David Huff Reply-To: Thincrust tooling devel list To: thincrust-devel at redhat.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have combined the two feature request in to one. Any comments before I submit to FeatureWrangler for approval: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/appliance-tools - -D -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkibaYYACgkQccHK32ogu/cgTwCggvH4acbyBoxfw4fZRpv98ZwJ hzMAniVxZBZIOfs+jdMWsK1rkrQqkavd =WFpP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Thincrust-devel mailing list Thincrust-devel at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/thincrust-devel From kwade at redhat.com Mon Aug 11 19:12:33 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:12:33 -0700 Subject: sharing package reviews Message-ID: <1218481953.4118.17.camel@calliope.phig.org> For those of you with open package reviews waiting for someone to review the package, how about you get together and swap package reviews? Anyone can do an initial review based on the package guidelines, although it will take a more experienced reviewer to ultimately sponsor the packages. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines Does this sound like an interesting idea? - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg key : AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From dpierce at redhat.com Mon Aug 11 19:19:58 2008 From: dpierce at redhat.com (Darryl L. Pierce) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:19:58 -0400 Subject: sharing package reviews In-Reply-To: <1218481953.4118.17.camel@calliope.phig.org> References: <1218481953.4118.17.camel@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <20080811191957.GD4917@redhat.com> +++ Karsten 'quaid' Wade [11/08/08 12:12 -0700]: >For those of you with open package reviews waiting for someone to review >the package, how about you get together and swap package reviews? > >Anyone can do an initial review based on the package guidelines, >although it will take a more experienced reviewer to ultimately sponsor >the packages. > >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines > >Does this sound like an interesting idea? It does to me, definitely. I haven't reviewed a package before, so have been kind of avoiding throwing my hat into the ring since I wouldn't want to give a thumbs up and miss something important (or annoying). If someone can review rubygem-cobbler (BZ #457839) I'll gladly return the favor. -- Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. - http://www.redhat.com/ oVirt - Virtual Machine Management - http://www.ovirt.org/ "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?" -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kwade at redhat.com Mon Aug 11 21:52:12 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:52:12 -0700 Subject: waiting on review, thought 2 Message-ID: <1218491532.4118.59.camel@calliope.phig.org> I'd like to draw attention to packages that you are waiting on for review, especially where the software is popular and desired across Fedora, but people may not be aware it is waiting in package review. I'm thinking of two things: * Having a wiki page that regularly updates our "hot list" of package review needs: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/ISV_package_review_hot_list Either add your list there or send it here, I can compile it on going. * Some general publicity, such as blog posts on the Fedora planet Another item we all want to work on is growing the membership of this list. There are many more ISVs that I have talked with who *need* to be on this list but have not yet sent at least one representative. If you know someone and so one, tell them about this unique communication channel inside of Fedora. Thanks - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg key : AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From bkearney at redhat.com Tue Aug 12 10:27:32 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 06:27:32 -0400 Subject: waiting on review, thought 2 In-Reply-To: <1218491532.4118.59.camel@calliope.phig.org> References: <1218491532.4118.59.camel@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <48A16594.5080807@redhat.com> Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > I'd like to draw attention to packages that you are waiting on for > review, especially where the software is popular and desired across > Fedora, but people may not be aware it is waiting in package review. > > I'm thinking of two things: > > * Having a wiki page that regularly updates our "hot list" of package > review needs: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/ISV_package_review_hot_list > > Either add your list there or send it here, I can compile it on going. > > * Some general publicity, such as blog posts on the Fedora planet > > Another item we all want to work on is growing the membership of this > list. There are many more ISVs that I have talked with who *need* to be > on this list but have not yet sent at least one representative. If you > know someone and so one, tell them about this unique communication > channel inside of Fedora. What is the normal process? I thought adding a bug, and making it a blocker was "good enough"? Obviously not, since I have had one sitting that way for a few weeks. -- bk From dpierce at redhat.com Tue Aug 12 14:20:35 2008 From: dpierce at redhat.com (Darryl L. Pierce) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:20:35 -0400 Subject: waiting on review, thought 2 In-Reply-To: <1218491532.4118.59.camel@calliope.phig.org> References: <1218491532.4118.59.camel@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <20080812142035.GC4409@redhat.com> +++ Karsten 'quaid' Wade [11/08/08 14:52 -0700]: >I'd like to draw attention to packages that you are waiting on for >review, especially where the software is popular and desired across >Fedora, but people may not be aware it is waiting in package review. > >I'm thinking of two things: > >* Having a wiki page that regularly updates our "hot list" of package >review needs: > >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/ISV_package_review_hot_list > >Either add your list there or send it here, I can compile it on going. How about having it auto-compile the list based on an aging of the review requests? If a review request is over a number of days old without being accepted them it shows up on the list, with the oldest first. -- Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. - http://www.redhat.com/ oVirt - Virtual Machine Management - http://www.ovirt.org/ "What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?" -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kwade at redhat.com Tue Aug 12 14:21:01 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:21:01 -0700 Subject: waiting on review, thought 2 In-Reply-To: <48A16594.5080807@redhat.com> References: <1218491532.4118.59.camel@calliope.phig.org> <48A16594.5080807@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1218550861.18668.14.camel@calliope.phig.org> On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 06:27 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote: > What is the normal process? I thought adding a bug, and making it a > blocker was "good enough"? Obviously not, since I have had one sitting > that way for a few weeks. You have the normal process correct, and as is normal, the number of reviewers is fewer than the need. Reviewers watch the blocker/tracking bug to know when new review requests are added. That process works reasonably well over the months, but it may not get something done in the shorter term. Sharing package reviews is one common way to shorten the queue; people often put up requests to share on fedora-devel-list. Even though most of us on this list cannot sponsor each other, we can get the initial package reviews done, making the steps to sponsored shorter. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg key : AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From kwade at redhat.com Tue Aug 12 14:26:27 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 07:26:27 -0700 Subject: waiting on review, thought 2 In-Reply-To: <20080812142035.GC4409@redhat.com> References: <1218491532.4118.59.camel@calliope.phig.org> <20080812142035.GC4409@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1218551187.18668.17.camel@calliope.phig.org> On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 10:20 -0400, Darryl L. Pierce wrote: > How about having it auto-compile the list based on an aging of the review > requests? If a review request is over a number of days old without being > accepted them it shows up on the list, with the oldest first. If you can do the web programming to make that happen (on to the wiki, a fedorapeople.org page, or wherever), the only question I have is: how do we tell the ISV-specific review requests from amongst all others? - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg key : AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mdahlman at jaspersoft.com Wed Aug 13 17:24:38 2008 From: mdahlman at jaspersoft.com (Matthew Dahlman) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:24:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: JPackage and Fedora Message-ID: <01b701c8fd69$76f9b990$dd0511ac@mdahlman2t60> Hi all, I've got a question about JPackage. Before getting to the question I'll give a bit of background. JasperServer, like most Java apps running in an application server, does not directly ship the source for many of our .jar dependencies; we retrieve them from trusted maven repositories. Anyone that's interested can track down the source to any of the jar files, but we don't normally ship it. This may not be in keeping with Fedora's guidelines. Therefore it would be good if we had a standard way to distribute the various jars along with their source. That brings us to JPackage (JPP). According to their site (http://www.jpackage.org/aboutjpp.php): The JPackage Project has two primary goals: - To provide a coherent set of Java software packages for Linux, satisfying all quality requirements of other applications. - To establish an efficient and robust policy for Java software packaging and installation. I also noticed that Fedora includes jpackage-utils by default. This brings me, finally, to my question. Is JPackage the correct place to direct our efforts to get all of our jar dependencies included? I'm hoping for answers somewhere along this continuum: "Yes, JPackage is the one and only place for work like this. Fedora officially supports this project and recommends that all Java apps use it." or "Yes, JPackage is a reasonable place for this work. There are some details to work out because they do a few things differently from Fedora best practices. Alternatively you could use X or Y." or "No, those JPackage guys will be the death of Java as we know it. Maybe of death of Linux and of life as we know it as well." Depending on people's thoughts on this I imagine we'll eventually get into separate detailed threads on how JPackage works with foo.jar here and/or on the JPackage mailing list. Thanks, Matt Jaspersoft From jhibbets at redhat.com Wed Aug 13 19:28:34 2008 From: jhibbets at redhat.com (Jason Hibbets) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:28:34 -0400 Subject: Open Source Project Enthusiasm Message-ID: <48A335E2.8050905@redhat.com> An interesting article on community building, open source project enthusiasm, and some misconception around project adaption. Growing Up Asterisk http://ostatic.com/170837-blog/growing-up-asterisk "Open source project leaders should take this lesson to heart and examine their growth strategies. Your project may be doomed to failure or relegated to the ever growing list of niche projects out there today if you reach too far too fast or fail to reach for the right people at the right time." -- Jason Hibbets, RHCE RHX & ISV Marketing Specialist Office - 919.754.4181 Red Hat :: 1801 Varsity Drive :: Raleigh, NC 27606 IT executives: Red Hat #1 in value. Again. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ From kwade at redhat.com Wed Aug 13 19:45:40 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:45:40 -0700 Subject: JPackage and Fedora In-Reply-To: <01b701c8fd69$76f9b990$dd0511ac@mdahlman2t60> References: <01b701c8fd69$76f9b990$dd0511ac@mdahlman2t60> Message-ID: <1218656740.18668.129.camel@calliope.phig.org> Background: I asked Matt to bring this discussion here, and in the meantime I'm getting a better understanding of the current relationship between JPackage and Fedora. On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 10:24 -0700, Matthew Dahlman wrote: > Hi all, > > I've got a question about JPackage. Before getting to the question I'll > give a bit of background. JasperServer, like most Java apps running in an > application server, does not directly ship the source for many of our .jar > dependencies; we retrieve them from trusted maven repositories. Anyone > that's interested can track down the source to any of the jar files, but > we don't normally ship it. This may not be in keeping with Fedora's > guidelines. You are correct, all dependencies must be inside of Fedora. Which sort-of answers your question below. Sort of. > Therefore it would be good if we had a standard way to distribute the > various jars along with their source. That brings us to JPackage (JPP). > According to their site (http://www.jpackage.org/aboutjpp.php): > The JPackage Project has two primary goals: > - To provide a coherent set of Java software packages for Linux, > satisfying all quality requirements of other applications. > - To establish an efficient and robust policy for Java software packaging > and installation. In fact, many JPackage packages are used as the ~70% starting point for the package that is submitted to Fedora. > I also noticed that Fedora includes jpackage-utils by default. This brings > me, finally, to my question. Is JPackage the correct place to direct our > efforts to get all of our jar dependencies included? At this time, I do not think it is the right direction. This is because there is not a formal relationship to operate between the two repositories. I'll keep hammering on that situation. The end goal for all of us is "yum install foo" pulls in foo and all foo's dependencies. If those dependencies are in JPackage, that install won't work. Right now. One thing we'll do here in this SIG is understand why things are how they are, and see what recommendations/changes we want to rally for in Fedora ... and JPackage. > I'm hoping for answers somewhere along this continuum: > > "Yes, JPackage is the one and only place for work like this. Fedora > officially supports this project and recommends that all Java apps use > it." > or > "Yes, JPackage is a reasonable place for this work. There are some details > to work out because they do a few things differently from Fedora best > practices. Alternatively you could use X or Y." > or > "No, those JPackage guys will be the death of Java as we know it. Maybe of > death of Linux and of life as we know it as well." "No, the relationship with JPackage is too much in flux to guarantee that won't be wasted work. Do the work in Fedora, and if JPackage becomes the standard, it will be easy to port the package over there." How was that? > Depending on people's thoughts on this I imagine we'll eventually get into > separate detailed threads on how JPackage works with foo.jar here and/or > on the JPackage mailing list. This is just my preliminary analysis. I'm expecting Tom Callaway, who leads the Packaging Committee, may have some more insight. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg key : AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jhibbets at redhat.com Wed Aug 13 20:02:21 2008 From: jhibbets at redhat.com (Jason Hibbets) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:02:21 -0400 Subject: JPackage and Fedora In-Reply-To: <01b701c8fd69$76f9b990$dd0511ac@mdahlman2t60> References: <01b701c8fd69$76f9b990$dd0511ac@mdahlman2t60> Message-ID: <48A33DCD.2000101@redhat.com> Matthew Dahlman wrote: > > Therefore it would be good if we had a standard way to distribute the > various jars along with their source. That brings us to JPackage (JPP). > According to their site (http://www.jpackage.org/aboutjpp.php): > The JPackage Project has two primary goals: > - To provide a coherent set of Java software packages for Linux, > satisfying all quality requirements of other applications. > - To establish an efficient and robust policy for Java software packaging > and installation. > Matt, Disclaimer: Matt and I had a brief discussion about this in person last week at LinuxWorld (over some really good Vietnamese I might add). So...I'm trying to remember the details of our talk. And iirc, Matt, you were presenting the issue about having to upload and maintain 60+ jar libraries (into the EPEL repo) in order to make all things JasperSoft work. You're looking for a way that makes this scalable and re-usable by others? Is that a good summary? I've seen that Karsten responded, but I wanted to try and pose the question in a different way. Is that the question you are asking? Jason -- Jason Hibbets, RHCE RHX & ISV Marketing Specialist Office - 919.754.4181 Red Hat :: 1801 Varsity Drive :: Raleigh, NC 27606 IT executives: Red Hat #1 in value. Again. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ From bkearney at redhat.com Wed Aug 13 20:17:31 2008 From: bkearney at redhat.com (Bryan Kearney) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:17:31 -0400 Subject: JPackage and Fedora In-Reply-To: <1218656740.18668.129.camel@calliope.phig.org> References: <01b701c8fd69$76f9b990$dd0511ac@mdahlman2t60> <1218656740.18668.129.camel@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <48A3415B.6020104@redhat.com> Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > Background: I asked Matt to bring this discussion here, and in the > meantime I'm getting a better understanding of the current relationship > between JPackage and Fedora. > > On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 10:24 -0700, Matthew Dahlman wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I've got a question about JPackage. Before getting to the question I'll >> give a bit of background. JasperServer, like most Java apps running in an >> application server, does not directly ship the source for many of our .jar >> dependencies; we retrieve them from trusted maven repositories. Anyone >> that's interested can track down the source to any of the jar files, but >> we don't normally ship it. This may not be in keeping with Fedora's >> guidelines. > > You are correct, all dependencies must be inside of Fedora. Which > sort-of answers your question below. Sort of. > >> Therefore it would be good if we had a standard way to distribute the >> various jars along with their source. That brings us to JPackage (JPP). >> According to their site (http://www.jpackage.org/aboutjpp.php): >> The JPackage Project has two primary goals: >> - To provide a coherent set of Java software packages for Linux, >> satisfying all quality requirements of other applications. >> - To establish an efficient and robust policy for Java software packaging >> and installation. > > In fact, many JPackage packages are used as the ~70% starting point for > the package that is submitted to Fedora. > >> I also noticed that Fedora includes jpackage-utils by default. This brings >> me, finally, to my question. Is JPackage the correct place to direct our >> efforts to get all of our jar dependencies included? > > At this time, I do not think it is the right direction. This is because > there is not a formal relationship to operate between the two > repositories. I'll keep hammering on that situation. > > The end goal for all of us is "yum install foo" pulls in foo and all > foo's dependencies. If those dependencies are in JPackage, that install > won't work. Right now. > > One thing we'll do here in this SIG is understand why things are how > they are, and see what recommendations/changes we want to rally for in > Fedora ... and JPackage. > >> I'm hoping for answers somewhere along this continuum: >> >> "Yes, JPackage is the one and only place for work like this. Fedora >> officially supports this project and recommends that all Java apps use >> it." >> or >> "Yes, JPackage is a reasonable place for this work. There are some details >> to work out because they do a few things differently from Fedora best >> practices. Alternatively you could use X or Y." >> or >> "No, those JPackage guys will be the death of Java as we know it. Maybe of >> death of Linux and of life as we know it as well." > > "No, the relationship with JPackage is too much in flux to guarantee > that won't be wasted work. Do the work in Fedora, and if JPackage > becomes the standard, it will be easy to port the package over there." Karsten, is there an alien type jpp -> rpm converter? -- bk From jhibbets at redhat.com Wed Aug 13 20:25:36 2008 From: jhibbets at redhat.com (Jason Hibbets) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:25:36 -0400 Subject: How does someone find the SIG page? Message-ID: <48A34340.30109@redhat.com> Hey - In an attempt to find the ISV SIG page today, I had a very difficult time navigating from the main page for Fedora Project main to the SIG ISV page. (Thanks BK!) Obviously, there is a unique balance of how things are organized and how high up on the tree one can go. I, and other's on this list, are working hard to promote this group, and we've been giving the direct link out. I guess I can not expect some random ISV person cruising the Fedora site to find and sign-up for the group. What is the best way that we can make sure people are able to find this page so they can participate? Thanks, Jason From stickster at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 20:45:44 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:45:44 +0000 Subject: How does someone find the SIG page? In-Reply-To: <48A34340.30109@redhat.com> References: <48A34340.30109@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1218660344.12777.58.camel@victoria> On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 16:25 -0400, Jason Hibbets wrote: > Hey - In an attempt to find the ISV SIG page today, I had a very > difficult time navigating from the main page for Fedora Project main to > the SIG ISV page. (Thanks BK!) Obviously, there is a unique balance of > how things are organized and how high up on the tree one can go. I, and > other's on this list, are working hard to promote this group, and we've > been giving the direct link out. > > I guess I can not expect some random ISV person cruising the Fedora site > to find and sign-up for the group. What is the best way that we can > make sure people are able to find this page so they can participate? I just added some magic wiki redirection so when someone goes to the wiki and does a blind search for "ISV" in the search box, they end up at the right place: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/ISV You could also file an Infrastructure ticket and ask for something like a "isv.fedoraproject.org" subdomain, to point to that landing pad. -- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From kwade at redhat.com Wed Aug 13 21:00:47 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:00:47 -0700 Subject: JPackage and Fedora In-Reply-To: <48A3415B.6020104@redhat.com> References: <01b701c8fd69$76f9b990$dd0511ac@mdahlman2t60> <1218656740.18668.129.camel@calliope.phig.org> <48A3415B.6020104@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1218661247.18668.162.camel@calliope.phig.org> On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 16:17 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote: > Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > > "No, the relationship with JPackage is too much in flux to guarantee > > that won't be wasted work. Do the work in Fedora, and if JPackage > > becomes the standard, it will be easy to port the package over > there." > > Karsten, is there an alien type jpp -> rpm converter? Hee hee, maybe not *that* easy. I was thinking more of the general similarity between JPackage and Fedora RPMs. I actually shouldn't claim that will be trivial, since it really depends. But there must be ways to do things in one system to make it easiest to port to the other, aiui that is done all the time. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg key : AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From stickster at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 21:01:01 2008 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:01:01 +0000 Subject: JPackage and Fedora In-Reply-To: <48A3415B.6020104@redhat.com> References: <01b701c8fd69$76f9b990$dd0511ac@mdahlman2t60> <1218656740.18668.129.camel@calliope.phig.org> <48A3415B.6020104@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1218661261.12777.62.camel@victoria> On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 16:17 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote: > Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > > Background: I asked Matt to bring this discussion here, and in the > > meantime I'm getting a better understanding of the current relationship > > between JPackage and Fedora. > > > > On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 10:24 -0700, Matthew Dahlman wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I've got a question about JPackage. Before getting to the question I'll > >> give a bit of background. JasperServer, like most Java apps running in an > >> application server, does not directly ship the source for many of our .jar > >> dependencies; we retrieve them from trusted maven repositories. Anyone > >> that's interested can track down the source to any of the jar files, but > >> we don't normally ship it. This may not be in keeping with Fedora's > >> guidelines. > > > > You are correct, all dependencies must be inside of Fedora. Which > > sort-of answers your question below. Sort of. > > > >> Therefore it would be good if we had a standard way to distribute the > >> various jars along with their source. That brings us to JPackage (JPP). > >> According to their site (http://www.jpackage.org/aboutjpp.php): > >> The JPackage Project has two primary goals: > >> - To provide a coherent set of Java software packages for Linux, > >> satisfying all quality requirements of other applications. > >> - To establish an efficient and robust policy for Java software packaging > >> and installation. > > > > In fact, many JPackage packages are used as the ~70% starting point for > > the package that is submitted to Fedora. > > > >> I also noticed that Fedora includes jpackage-utils by default. This brings > >> me, finally, to my question. Is JPackage the correct place to direct our > >> efforts to get all of our jar dependencies included? > > > > At this time, I do not think it is the right direction. This is because > > there is not a formal relationship to operate between the two > > repositories. I'll keep hammering on that situation. > > > > The end goal for all of us is "yum install foo" pulls in foo and all > > foo's dependencies. If those dependencies are in JPackage, that install > > won't work. Right now. > > > > One thing we'll do here in this SIG is understand why things are how > > they are, and see what recommendations/changes we want to rally for in > > Fedora ... and JPackage. > > > >> I'm hoping for answers somewhere along this continuum: > >> > >> "Yes, JPackage is the one and only place for work like this. Fedora > >> officially supports this project and recommends that all Java apps use > >> it." > >> or > >> "Yes, JPackage is a reasonable place for this work. There are some details > >> to work out because they do a few things differently from Fedora best > >> practices. Alternatively you could use X or Y." > >> or > >> "No, those JPackage guys will be the death of Java as we know it. Maybe of > >> death of Linux and of life as we know it as well." > > > > "No, the relationship with JPackage is too much in flux to guarantee > > that won't be wasted work. Do the work in Fedora, and if JPackage > > becomes the standard, it will be easy to port the package over there." > > Karsten, is there an alien type jpp -> rpm converter? ISTR that this was a no-no from Fedora packaging standards, since that approach would just be packaging up a .jar/.zip archive file, but Spot can probably shed more light on that. -- Paul W. Frields gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://paul.frields.org/ - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From mdahlman at jaspersoft.com Wed Aug 13 21:20:38 2008 From: mdahlman at jaspersoft.com (Matthew Dahlman) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:20:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: JPackage and Fedora In-Reply-To: <48A33DCD.2000101@redhat.com> References: <01b701c8fd69$76f9b990$dd0511ac@mdahlman2t60> <48A33DCD.2000101@redhat.com> Message-ID: <009a01c8fd8a$6ee8bdc0$dd0511ac@mdahlman2t60> Yes, I'd say that's a good way of rephrasing my question. As an additional point I'll add this. We expect that many other vendors will use many of the same jar files that we use. Some credibility is lent to this expectation by the fact that the big majority of our 80 jar files are already in JPackage. (e.g. acegi-security.jar, axis.jar, hibernate.jar, jakarta-commons-io.jar, etc.) While the idea of Jaspersoft maintaining 80 jars as well as our own JasperServer jars sounds... daunting. The idea that we would contribute to maintaining a common library of jars seems much more reasonable. That's the reason that JPP caught my eye. I'll stay tuned to see what Karsten and Tom have to add. For now I'll assume that JPP is probably not the right solution, but that the right solution will eventually shake out of this list. -Matt Jaspersoft -----Original Message----- From: Jason Hibbets [mailto:jhibbets at redhat.com] Sent: Wednesday, 13 August, 2008 13:02 To: Matthew Dahlman Cc: fedora-isv-sig-list at redhat.com Subject: Re: JPackage and Fedora Matthew Dahlman wrote: > > Therefore it would be good if we had a standard way to distribute the > various jars along with their source. That brings us to JPackage (JPP). > According to their site (http://www.jpackage.org/aboutjpp.php): > The JPackage Project has two primary goals: > - To provide a coherent set of Java software packages for Linux, > satisfying all quality requirements of other applications. > - To establish an efficient and robust policy for Java software > packaging and installation. > Matt, Disclaimer: Matt and I had a brief discussion about this in person last week at LinuxWorld (over some really good Vietnamese I might add). So...I'm trying to remember the details of our talk. And iirc, Matt, you were presenting the issue about having to upload and maintain 60+ jar libraries (into the EPEL repo) in order to make all things JasperSoft work. You're looking for a way that makes this scalable and re-usable by others? Is that a good summary? I've seen that Karsten responded, but I wanted to try and pose the question in a different way. Is that the question you are asking? Jason -- Jason Hibbets, RHCE RHX & ISV Marketing Specialist Office - 919.754.4181 Red Hat :: 1801 Varsity Drive :: Raleigh, NC 27606 IT executives: Red Hat #1 in value. Again. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ From lee.faus at alfresco.com Wed Aug 13 23:17:10 2008 From: lee.faus at alfresco.com (Lee Faus) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:17:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: JPackage and Fedora In-Reply-To: <009a01c8fd8a$6ee8bdc0$dd0511ac@mdahlman2t60> Message-ID: <27846745.472671218669430372.JavaMail.root@unx-d-manc4.tc.ifeltd.com> Alfresco is in the same boat. Not allowing binary compatible RPMs from a third party repo only causes proliferation. Plus you can end up with version conflicts. JPackage is the defacto location for Java RPMs, not Fedora. I also notice that a number of Fedora Java RPMs already are JPP packages based on the naming convention. The folks from Fedora grab the source RPM from JPackage and then recompile it to get it to run under Fedora. There are some problems with this approach because you don't know what version of Java this package was compiled against. GCJ, IcedTea, OpenJava, it is a big assumption that you can compile it under one and get it to run under another (try compliling Hibernate under GCJ). There needs to be a common repository of ONLY java packages. Why Fedora wants to duplicate work that is already established and replicate disk space just doesn't make sense. Plus, I would think the process here would also follow for RHEL and CentOS. Do we really want different YUM repos out there with the same RPM? Will I end up being responsible for that RPM downstream in CentOS and RHEL? Great discussion Matt, keep it up. Lee Faus Director of Solution Engineering Alfresco ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Dahlman" To: "Jason Hibbets" Cc: fedora-isv-sig-list at redhat.com Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 5:20:38 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: RE: JPackage and Fedora Yes, I'd say that's a good way of rephrasing my question. As an additional point I'll add this. We expect that many other vendors will use many of the same jar files that we use. Some credibility is lent to this expectation by the fact that the big majority of our 80 jar files are already in JPackage. (e.g. acegi-security.jar, axis.jar, hibernate.jar, jakarta-commons-io.jar, etc.) While the idea of Jaspersoft maintaining 80 jars as well as our own JasperServer jars sounds... daunting. The idea that we would contribute to maintaining a common library of jars seems much more reasonable. That's the reason that JPP caught my eye. I'll stay tuned to see what Karsten and Tom have to add. For now I'll assume that JPP is probably not the right solution, but that the right solution will eventually shake out of this list. -Matt Jaspersoft -----Original Message----- From: Jason Hibbets [mailto:jhibbets at redhat.com] Sent: Wednesday, 13 August, 2008 13:02 To: Matthew Dahlman Cc: fedora-isv-sig-list at redhat.com Subject: Re: JPackage and Fedora Matthew Dahlman wrote: > > Therefore it would be good if we had a standard way to distribute the > various jars along with their source. That brings us to JPackage (JPP). > According to their site (http://www.jpackage.org/aboutjpp.php): > The JPackage Project has two primary goals: > - To provide a coherent set of Java software packages for Linux, > satisfying all quality requirements of other applications. > - To establish an efficient and robust policy for Java software > packaging and installation. > Matt, Disclaimer: Matt and I had a brief discussion about this in person last week at LinuxWorld (over some really good Vietnamese I might add). So...I'm trying to remember the details of our talk. And iirc, Matt, you were presenting the issue about having to upload and maintain 60+ jar libraries (into the EPEL repo) in order to make all things JasperSoft work. You're looking for a way that makes this scalable and re-usable by others? Is that a good summary? I've seen that Karsten responded, but I wanted to try and pose the question in a different way. Is that the question you are asking? Jason -- Jason Hibbets, RHCE RHX & ISV Marketing Specialist Office - 919.754.4181 Red Hat :: 1801 Varsity Drive :: Raleigh, NC 27606 IT executives: Red Hat #1 in value. Again. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/ _______________________________________________ Fedora-isv-sig-list mailing list Fedora-isv-sig-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-isv-sig-list From gdk at redhat.com Thu Aug 14 14:01:49 2008 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg Dekoenigsberg) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:01:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: JPackage and Fedora In-Reply-To: <27846745.472671218669430372.JavaMail.root@unx-d-manc4.tc.ifeltd.com> References: <27846745.472671218669430372.JavaMail.root@unx-d-manc4.tc.ifeltd.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Lee Faus wrote: > Alfresco is in the same boat. Not allowing binary compatible RPMs from > a third party repo only causes proliferation. Plus you can end up with > version conflicts. JPackage is the defacto location for Java RPMs, not > Fedora. I also notice that a number of Fedora Java RPMs already are JPP > packages based on the naming convention. The folks from Fedora grab the > source RPM from JPackage and then recompile it to get it to run under > Fedora. There are some problems with this approach because you don't > know what version of Java this package was compiled against. GCJ, > IcedTea, OpenJava, it is a big assumption that you can compile it under > one and get it to run under another (try compliling Hibernate under > GCJ). There needs to be a common repository of ONLY java packages. > Why Fedora wants to duplicate work that is already established and > replicate disk space just doesn't make sense. Perhaps this is exactly right. It's all about how one defines the platform. The goal of a software repository is to make it simple to get software trivially installed on a particular platform, and to make sure that the work of maintaining that platform is shared by its users. Fedora is one class of platform. JREs are another class of platform. It is possible to have repositories with dependencies that only go one way. Livna, for example, has many dependencies on packages in the Fedora universe -- but not the other way around. So you end up with a tree structure of repos, essentially. Perhaps it's time to formalize how this multi-repo policy should work. I think the approach of banging everything into Fedora is starting to show its limitations. --g From kwade at redhat.com Thu Aug 14 14:44:27 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:44:27 -0700 Subject: JPackage and Fedora In-Reply-To: References: <27846745.472671218669430372.JavaMail.root@unx-d-manc4.tc.ifeltd.com> Message-ID: <1218725067.18668.215.camel@calliope.phig.org> On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 10:01 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote: > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Lee Faus wrote: > > Why Fedora wants to duplicate work that is already established and > > replicate disk space just doesn't make sense. > > Perhaps this is exactly right. As a devil's advocate, why shouldn't that repository be Fedora? In this case, why not have JPackage merge in to Fedora in some way, either directly or as a branch project similar to EPEL? There is a precedent in EPEL of supporting CentOS and other RHEL derivatives. Could that be extended for a JPackage branch to cover all RPM-based distros? To some degree it is six of one, half dozen of the other. Things to keep in mind are: * Strength of the JPackage brand * Do the two repositories work well together now? * Would making JPackage the "official Fedora Java package repository" _improve_ interactions between the two projects? * Could we separate Java packages in to JPackage in a way similar to Fedora and Livna? The latter question is, I think, the killer. We've never experimented with Fedora having packages with dependencies in another repository. It's going to take a high level of trust and agreed process/philosophy to make that work. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg key : AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jesusr at redhat.com Thu Aug 14 18:00:10 2008 From: jesusr at redhat.com (Jesus M. Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:00:10 -0400 Subject: JPackage and Fedora In-Reply-To: <1218725067.18668.215.camel@calliope.phig.org> References: <27846745.472671218669430372.JavaMail.root@unx-d-manc4.tc.ifeltd.com> <1218725067.18668.215.camel@calliope.phig.org> Message-ID: <48A472AA.6010804@redhat.com> Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 10:01 -0400, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Lee Faus wrote: > >>> Why Fedora wants to duplicate work that is already established and >>> replicate disk space just doesn't make sense. >> Perhaps this is exactly right. > > As a devil's advocate, why shouldn't that repository be Fedora? In this > case, why not have JPackage merge in to Fedora in some way, either > directly or as a branch project similar to EPEL? Having it merge directly in Fedora would exclude other distros, would it not? If it more closely resembles EPEL, I could see it still being able to accomplish it's goals of being more distro agnostic. > There is a precedent in EPEL of supporting CentOS and other RHEL > derivatives. Could that be extended for a JPackage branch to cover all > RPM-based distros? Interesting idea, worth exploring. > To some degree it is six of one, half dozen of the other. Things to > keep in mind are: > > * Strength of the JPackage brand > * Do the two repositories work well together now? As a user of said packages, unless one adds excludes/includes to the repositories they don't always work together. There are times conflicts arise. > * Would making JPackage the "official Fedora Java package repository" > _improve_ interactions between the two projects? > * Could we separate Java packages in to JPackage in a way similar to > Fedora and Livna? I would like to see that. I mean it is nice to be able to install for example, eclipse by default when I install Fedora *without* having to use a different repository. But trying to keep one repo up2date with the other is becoming challenging. > The latter question is, I think, the killer. We've never experimented > with Fedora having packages with dependencies in another repository. > It's going to take a high level of trust and agreed process/philosophy > to make that work. -- jesus m. rodriguez | jesusr at redhat.com sr. software engineer | irc: zeus red hat network | 919.754.4413 (w) rhce # 805008586930012 | 919.623.0080 (c) +-------------------------------------------+ | "Those who cannot learn from history | | are doomed to repeat it." | | -- George Santayana | +-------------------------------------------+ From kwade at redhat.com Tue Aug 19 19:42:23 2008 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten 'quaid' Wade) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:42:23 -0700 Subject: How does someone find the SIG page? In-Reply-To: <48A34340.30109@redhat.com> References: <48A34340.30109@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1219174943.7342.73.camel@calliope.phig.org> Looks like I never completed this to send, so here goes ... On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 16:25 -0400, Jason Hibbets wrote: > Hey - In an attempt to find the ISV SIG page today, I had a very > difficult time navigating from the main page for Fedora Project main to > the SIG ISV page. (Thanks BK!) Obviously, there is a unique balance of > how things are organized and how high up on the tree one can go. I, and > other's on this list, are working hard to promote this group, and we've > been giving the direct link out. > > I guess I can not expect some random ISV person cruising the Fedora site > to find and sign-up for the group. What is the best way that we can > make sure people are able to find this page so they can participate? Not being on this page in the top section is an oversight: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs Looks like we got added after you wrote this At the bottom you'll see that we're in the SIGs category, but the name is buried due to the nesting underneath SIGs. We have new naming guidelines that address that; the nesting is a remnant of practices from the old wiki. If you click [Go] by the search field for "ISV", you get the ISV page, which actually redirects to SIGs/ISV: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ISV That is not case sensitive for the search, so 'isv' isn't working. A full search for 'ISV': https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=ISV&fulltext=Search ... turns up nothing. That is weird. Oh, the problem is ... Media Wiki is searching for 'ISV' which actually never appears, it seems it is always "ISVs" in the pages and titles. If you search for 'ISVs' then you get all the answers. Short of fixing the MediaWiki search tool, maybe we can just reword the page or embed some keywords to help it be found? - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg key : AD0E0C41 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: