Luvna (Re: scientific license - fedora compatible?)

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Am Dienstag, den 23.05.2006, 11:20 +0100 schrieb Jonathan Underwood:
> On 23/05/06, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> wrote:
> > Which brings us the a point which we have been over and over again. We
> > could really use a Non Free or Non Commercial repo for stuff like this,
> > I know we have the repo which may not be named, but the may not be named
> > is exactly the problem, if we want to cater as wide an audience as
> > possible (and IMHO we do) we could really use a Non Commercial repo.
> 
> It would be nice. The unmentionable repo does not operate in the same
> way as FE, as far as I can tell - it would be really nice to have a
> repo for non-commercial stuff not allowed in extras,

Someone has to work out a detailed plan (with some examples which of the
current packages would be located in which repo; and how do the sub-repo
depend on each other? Stuff like that). Then convince the luvna
maintainers that it's a good idea. That's probably the hardest part and
will take some time because multiple sub-repos confuse everything a lot.
But it might be doable. And there needs to be someone that drives the
whole thing forward. 

See also Luvna's bugzilla #998 (filed yesterday)

>  let's called it
> Luvna, which uses the same infrastructure as FE,

The current Luvna tries to do more and more things just like Extras does
them -- it for example uses plague these days a similar repo layout (but
svn instead of cvs). But it's still far from perfect.

>  and which is open to contributors.

All current Fedora Extras maintainer can get access to Luvna very easily
afaik -- just ask for it and it should be granted. Want to get a new
package in? Just put it under review in Luvna's bugzilla just as you
would do it for Extras (warning, Luvna lacks reviewers, too). 

But Luvna really is lacking contributors these days. There are AFICS
only very few people keeping it alive and they have a lot of work to do
already (with Extras and Luvna). That's one of the reasons why the
Luvna-documentation for example really sucks. Some of the key
contributors are quite frustrated afaik. Luvna really needs more help,
otherwise it might fail over time.

BTW, some of the Luvna guys also brought the idea "Let's merge with
other 3rd party repos to one grant-unified-3rd-party repo that only
enhances Core and Extras and does not replace packages from Core and
Extas" on the table. There were some private mails with other repo
maintainers, but nothing came out of it afaik. 

CU
thl