about maintainers and packagemonkeys (was: Re: rpms/ocsinventory-client/devel ocsinventory-client.spec, 1.7, 1.8)

David Woodhouse dwmw2 at infradead.org
Fri May 4 10:52:20 UTC 2007

On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 12:24 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> My 2 cent: Fedora needs both maintainers and packagemonkeys (as you call
> them).
> Packagemonkeys (and in my interpretation of the term) can do lots of
> good work IMHO:
> - package apps
> - update them now and then
> - making sure they work well
> - look at bugs
> - fix the trivial bugs
> - forward bugs upstream
> E.g. they can do relative easy kind of maintenance work without even
> know a programming language. Thus they are helpful for the project as a
> whole and can do some "easy tasks" while real "maintainers" with more
> skills can concentrate on the stuff that harder to fix or realize.
> In the end we might have an overall better distro with lots of packages.
> And with a bit of luck a lot of packagemonkeys become real maintainers
> over time.

You could be right. But they _MUST_ file the bugs seeking assistance
where required.

> P.S.:Packagemonkey sounds bad and we should not use the term IMHO.

It's a term which is precisely suited to the task. Nobody seemed to
offer a better one last time I asked.

I like monkeys.

> Anyway, just in case anyone wonders: I consider myself as a package
> monkey, as I never found time to learn programming properly :-/

I also consider myself a package monkey, for certain packages. I'd like
to get rid of bluez-*, for example, since they seem to be more and more
based on dbus, about which I am entirely clueless.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list