Package submission process

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le vendredi 14 octobre 2005 à 14:43 -0700, Ian MacGregor a écrit :
> Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > On 10/14/05, Ian MacGregor <contact at ardchoille.org> wrote:
> > 
> >>  My name is Ian MacGregor and I have been using Fedora since FC1.
> >>Fedora is the best distro available and I thank those involved for its
> >>creation. I create packages for apps when I find an app that I like
> >>which is not on Fedora Extras or Livna - I enjoy building packages. I
> >>have been trying to become a Fedora Extras contributor but I cannot
> >>understand the 20-step process here:
> >>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Sorry you feel this way. But I think you have greatly over-simplified
> > what is actually necessary. In your six step world.. how do you gain
> > access to the cvs system?
> There doesn't need to be a cvs system setup for packages, IMO.
> I create a package, tell the reviewer it's available, reviewer 
> reviews/tests the package. If the package doesn't pass, I take care of 
> any problems and repackage, if the package passes, the reviewer submits 
> the package to Extras.

Ian, I've been packaging for other projects that work like you write.
Believe me, from a packager POW it's much nicer to have all the
infrastructure (CVS, bugzilla, build farm) provided by the project.

After the initial bureaucracy you only need one command to get an
updated src.rpm in the repo (cvs-import.sh) and another to request a
rebuild (make plague). The various packaging guidelines checks are
sanity checks you learn quickly and you should be doing even in the
manual case (without a clean checklist to make sure you haven't
forgotten anything). The new package process is a bit more complex but
you're mainly in manual land as you requested :)

The people here have been trying very hard to automate all that can be
automated. That's really the only way to make work a big packaging
project. If you still find actions that could be automated everyone will
be happy to look at them.

The biggest problem right now is the documentation of the process, which
is pretty confusing and makes it appear much harder then it is in
reality. If you know a *good* tech writer there's work for him here. As
you wrote the current document is very good at getting people look
elsewhere.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20051015/060ea485/attachment.sig>