On 09/25/2014 12:22 PM, Till Maas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 09:36:07AM -0500, Jim Perrin wrote:
> Members of this group would be responsible for shepherding packages
> designated by the various SIG efforts in CentOS through the process of
> getting these packages in epel. This means that rather than having an
> individual owner, packages would have group ownership. Members of this
> group will be required to have access to make package modifications on
> the CentOS side so that they meet the packaging standards for EPEL.
> Additionally, it would help to have an EPEL proven packager as part of
> the group as well in order to help make things move a little quicker.
>
> Would this be acceptable from an EPEL standpoint? What would be required
> from an EPEL perspective to make this happen?
Can you please be more detailed about who should get which privileges
and how? E.g. do you want to become the new members packagers without
being properly sponsored?
Very much no. Members of this group would be submitting packages on
behalf of those in the CentOS community who don't wish to do so
themselves. If the package doesn't measure up, it gets no special
treatment and would be fixed prior to acceptance.
Members of this group would be required to go through the usual
sponsorship/submission practices, etc.
Also do you plan to not use Fedora's git repository to build packages
from?
These packages may not necessarily start off in fedora's git, but per
EPEL policy they should end up there if they're to be built for epel. I
would imagine most are likely already in fedora's git as the upstream,
and would require only branch+patch ownership.
Technically, support is already possible by just becoming packagers,
since there is also group ownership in the package database.
Yes, but I'm told this is not generally common practice, which is why I
wanted to bring it up here first to make sure it's not a problem.
--
Jim Perrin
The CentOS Project |
http://www.centos.org
twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77