[K12OSN] Requests for new packages, WAS: Add DrPyton to Distro?

[Eric Harrison]

On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 11:48 -0800, Rich McCue wrote:
> I'm just wondering what the proper etiquette is for suggesting
> additional packages to the distro.  I'd love to see DrPyton as part of
> the distro... Just let me know if I'm out of line for suggesting it
> here.

The procedure is very straight-forward and easy to understand: the less
work I have to do the more likely it is to get done ;-)

Here are the general rules-of-thumb, in order of the most preferable to
the least:

1) Fedora Extras binary packages (www.fedora.us) can be added as-is. 
   This is near zero work for me! Noting that the package is in
   Fedora.us is good for one brownie point, providing the URL directly
   to the package is work three brownie points ;-)

2) Source packages from other repositories, such as Freshrpms, are
   likely to acceptable. Binary packages for non-Fedora origins will
   not be included. If the package rebuilds cleanly, and it looks like
   it would not be a nightmare to maintain should the third-party drop
   support, it would be likely considered for inclusion. Providing a
   URL to the source package is worth extra brownie points.

3) Source tarballs are ok, if it is easy enough to package and is
   likely to be widely used. Tuxpaint is a good example. Again, 
   providing a link is appreciated. 

4) If I have a hard time finding the requested package, and have
   never heard of it, odds are pretty low...

A few caveats:

* We are always running low on space in the ISOs, the bigger the
  package the less likely it will be added

* Modification of official Fedora packages is to be avoided whenever
  possible.

-Eric

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/k12osn/attachments/20041124/7b6053eb/attachment.sig>