1:54 p.m.
How do we distinguish packages in the Playground repo from those in the
Fedora's main repo?
Proposal:
Do not try to distinguish them. Rpmfusion packages also don't have
different dist tag. You can find out if really want to by rpm -something
or check key, which will be also different.
Let's use the same system, which we used for approval of Playground
repo: mirroring. No disapproval on mailing list means approval on next
meeting.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Playground_repository_%28dr...
2:13 p.m.
On 03/26/2014 02:54 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
How do we distinguish packages in the Playground repo from those in
the
Fedora's main repo?
Proposal:
Do not try to distinguish them. Rpmfusion packages also don't have
different dist tag. You can find out if really want to by rpm -something
or check key, which will be also different.
Let's use the same system, which we used for approval of Playground
repo: mirroring. No disapproval on mailing list means approval on next
meeting.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Playground_repository_%28dr...
It's close to next question:
Does the review differ depending on who is building the package (cla+1
vs in the packager group)?
Let's say all Playground repositories packagers has to have cla+1, which
means they know enough about Legal, so they have to have it right.
Marcela
4:04 a.m.
On 03/26/2014 08:13 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
On 03/26/2014 02:54 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> How do we distinguish packages in the Playground repo from those in the
> Fedora's main repo?
>
> Proposal:
> Do not try to distinguish them. Rpmfusion packages also don't have
> different dist tag. You can find out if really want to by rpm -something
> or check key, which will be also different.
>
> Let's use the same system, which we used for approval of Playground
> repo: mirroring. No disapproval on mailing list means approval on next
> meeting.
>
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Playground_repository_%28dr...
>
>
It's close to next question:
Does the review differ depending on who is building the package (cla+1
vs in the packager group)?
Let's say all Playground repositories packagers has to have cla+1, which
means they know enough about Legal, so they have to have it right.
I wouldn't say that just from having cla+1 we can say anything about
packages these people produce. Anyway, cla+1 requirement seems fine to
me, since IIUIC, that means the person has some sponsor who should watch
his steps, right? It still can be real beginner with no deeper
knowledge, though.
Honza
Marcela
_______________________________________________
env-and-stacks mailing list
env-and-stacks(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/env-and-stacks
9:52 a.m.
On 03/27/2014 05:04 AM, Honza Horak wrote:
On 03/26/2014 08:13 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 03/26/2014 02:54 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>> How do we distinguish packages in the Playground repo from those in the
>> Fedora's main repo?
>>
>> Proposal:
>> Do not try to distinguish them. Rpmfusion packages also don't have
>> different dist tag. You can find out if really want to by rpm -something
>> or check key, which will be also different.
>>
>> Let's use the same system, which we used for approval of Playground
>> repo: mirroring. No disapproval on mailing list means approval on next
>> meeting.
>>
>>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Playground_repository_%28dr...
>>
>>
>>
> It's close to next question:
> Does the review differ depending on who is building the package (cla+1
> vs in the packager group)?
> Let's say all Playground repositories packagers has to have cla+1, which
> means they know enough about Legal, so they have to have it right.
I wouldn't say that just from having cla+1 we can say anything about
packages these people produce. Anyway, cla+1 requirement seems fine to
me, since IIUIC, that means the person has some sponsor who should watch
his steps, right? It still can be real beginner with no deeper
knowledge, though.
Honza
True, but that's a problem of the sponsor, isn't it :)
Marcela
6:15 a.m.
On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 15:13 -0400, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
It's close to next question:
Does the review differ depending on who is building the package (cla+1
vs in the packager group)?
Let's say all Playground repositories packagers has to have cla+1, which
means they know enough about Legal, so they have to have it right.
As I argued previously, I wish the review would encompass a little more
checks that just making sure that the package passes the Licensing
guidelines/policy.
Also, if we decide to go with the (semi)automatic reviews, the automatic
part of the review wouldn't need differ depending on the packager since
we would get it for *free* (i.e. very quickly).
The (smaller) manual part could differ. For example, a packager could do
a self-review if he has cla+1, otherwise he would need a review by some
other packager with cla+1.
Tadej
6 a.m.
On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 14:54 -0400, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
How do we distinguish packages in the Playground repo from those in
the
Fedora's main repo?
Proposal:
Do not try to distinguish them. Rpmfusion packages also don't have
different dist tag. You can find out if really want to by rpm -something
or check key, which will be also different.
+1.
One thing that will lessen the need for distinguishing the packages is
that the Playground repo will not provide newer versions of existing
packages in the main repository (BTW, have we reached consensus on that
yet?). Hence, there will be no problems with improperly filed bug
reports in Bugzilla (as can be the case with COPRs).
The way Copr solves the problem of distinguishing the packages is by
providing a custom Vendor tag of the form:
Fedora Project COPR (<user>/<project>)
Maybe we could also use the same system and go with something like:
Fedora Project Playground repository
What do you think?
Of course, the signing key will also be different.
Tadej
6:03 a.m.
On 04/01/2014 01:00 PM, Tadej Janež wrote:
On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 14:54 -0400, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> How do we distinguish packages in the Playground repo from those in the
> Fedora's main repo?
>
> Proposal:
> Do not try to distinguish them. Rpmfusion packages also don't have
> different dist tag. You can find out if really want to by rpm -something
> or check key, which will be also different.
+1.
One thing that will lessen the need for distinguishing the packages is
that the Playground repo will not provide newer versions of existing
packages in the main repository (BTW, have we reached consensus on that
yet?). Hence, there will be no problems with improperly filed bug
reports in Bugzilla (as can be the case with COPRs).
I guess we didn't.
The way Copr solves the problem of distinguishing the packages is by
providing a custom Vendor tag of the form:
Fedora Project COPR (<user>/<project>)
Maybe we could also use the same system and go with something like:
Fedora Project Playground repository
What do you think?
Could be easy to do.
Of course, the signing key will also be different.
Tadej
_______________________________________________
env-and-stacks mailing list
env-and-stacks(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/env-and-stacks
Marcela
2:16 a.m.
On 04/01/2014 01:00 PM, Tadej Janež wrote:
The way Copr solves the problem of distinguishing the packages is by
providing a custom Vendor tag of the form:
Fedora Project COPR (<user>/<project>)
Maybe we could also use the same system and go with something like:
Fedora Project Playground repository
What do you think?
How can you do that without rebuilding package?
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys
3685
days inactive
3692
days old
env-and-stacks@lists.fedoraproject.org
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Honza Horak -
Marcela Mašláňová -
Miroslav Suchý -
Tadej Janež