An introduction of the new cheerleader...

Michael Schwendt ms-nospam-0306 at arcor.de
Mon Jan 26 20:40:48 UTC 2004


On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:43:41 +0100, Rudi Chiarito wrote:

> > There must be developers and package maintainers [other than ESR] with
> > precize ideas on how they would like to contribute packages. Similarly,
> 
> I can't speak for anyone else, but as an interested party with a few
> tens of packages to be unleashed (half of them Perl modules required by 
> the main packages, *sigh*),

Do these Perl modules install into vendor directories already? ;)

The fedora.us perl-MailTools spec fragment is a good example on clean Perl
module packaging.

> I beg to differ with the above.

Well, fine but that's not enough, since you do need to have expectations
on how to interact with any people who may need to review and approve your
package submissions.
 
> I really don't care how exactly packages are going to be contributed.
> All I care about is process automation. I have no time to waste filing
> Bugzilla entries manually, as you're supposed to do now with fedora.us.

I'm also a fan of automization, but (1) you cannot automate everything,
and (2) automization which saves one party time, should not increase the
work-load for another party. So, afterall you must have precize ideas on
how you would like to contribute packages. If, for instance, submitting
automated package request tickets result in overloading the queue for
reviewers or poor communication between packager and QA, that would be a
bad thing. Automization seems suitable for people with commit-access to a
build-system.

> I'd rather spend whatever time I have on the actual packages, improving
> their quality. I know they still need attention.

Great! The weak part of the fedora.us system is, IMHO, that not all
package maintainers like to spend time on improving packages. Or at least
they have a completely different opinion on when a package is of fine or
satisfactory quality.

-- 





More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list