Packaging guidelines: IPv6
dwmw2 at infradead.org
Wed Jul 5 14:48:52 UTC 2006
On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 15:37 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> No there isn't. In an ideal world there should be one, but there are a
> lot of others things that aren't done currently that should be done
> first before we get a step closer to that ideal world.
> Further: A basic security check would mean that each packager and the
> reviewer must understand and know the programming language the software
> he packages is written in. And that's often not the case and would make
> packaging and reviewing even more complicated (it hard enough already)
I think that a basic understanding of the code which you're patching and
shipping _should_ be considered a requirement in the general case, yes.
I've said it before, and because I'm right I'll say it again: Fedora
needs _maintainers_, not just package-monkeys.
> Heck, it's probably even worse: There are afaik a lot of Extras
> packagers that simply are no real programmers at all. I for example
> don't know C or C++, my Java skills are limited, I never found enough
> time to really dig into python and the only think I understand well is
> bash -- and that's not a real programming language.
> It seems to me that a lot of people often forget that. But does that
> mean that I (and all the other non-programmers) should stop contributing
> to Extras?
You, Thorsten, are a special case -- you're downplaying your own
capabilities. I know perfectly well that you pay attention to detail and
you're entirely capable of seeking out assistance when you need it.
And I don't suggest that even in general such people should "stop
contributing to Extras"; just that they should not be sponsored as
package _maintainers_ -- at least for packages containing code they
More information about the Fedora-maintainers