RPM submission procedure

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 04:16:01 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:35:13PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
> > freshrpms/axel/dag/newrpms is comprised of several one-man
> > operations that sometimes conflict and cause package clashes.
> 
> Even when that happens from time to time (the compined repos do have
> 892 packages as I just read off Dag's page), these are far less severe
> than the painful "Epoch: 0" slamming that fedora.us applied with obvious
> zero QA, breaking all users mixing repositories.

What have you been smoking? Explicit Epoch 0 in versioned dependencies is
a QA policy. And explicit Epoch 0 in packages itself doesn't do any harm.

> > >(1) Software compromised for IP reasons must be exiled to livna.org
> > >    Repository keepers must agree to comply with a ban list compiled
> > >    by Red Hat.
> > 
> > It already seems to have happened.  It seems that rpm.livna.org is 
> > collaborative with a Bugzilla and QA procedure too.
> 
> Isn't rpm.livna.org the offspring from fedora.us, where all no-go
> packages were copied to (rhetorical question ;)? So it isn't a real
> accomplishment to be cooperative with yourself, as it is not a wonder
> either that fedora.us has indeed a repository it does not reject
> cooperation with ...

rpm.livna.org does not reject cooperation with fedora.us as it depends on
fedora.us (besides Core packages). For livna.org to cooperate with other
repositories, there are not enough developer resources available.

--