On Mon, Nov 2, 2026 at 2:19 PM Carl Byington via devel <[email protected]> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > On Mon, 2026-11-02 at 09:19 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2026-11-02 at 16:43 +0100, Lukasz Wojnilowicz wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Is packaging a fork and naming it the same as upstream permissible? > > > That just happened at > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2497737 > > > It happens, but I would usually expect to see a clear explanation in > > the spec file, and that does not appear to be the case here. I would > > expect there to be a bank of comments around the URL and Source lines > > explaining why we prefer the fork and what the relationship between > > the original repo and the fork is. > > Proposed text for that explanation: > > # The upstream should be https://github.com/arsenetar/dupeguru but > # that version is almost dormant. The last release was four years ago, > # and there are many critical outstanding pull requests that have > # not been merged. > # > # https://github.com/carlbyington2/dupeguru/tree/fedora-build is a > # fork with most of the open pull requests from arsenetar applied. >
If you are effectively going to be maintaining an active fork anyway, it might be in your best interest to try to reach out to the original maintainer directly and see if they would be willing to add you as a maintainer on the existing upstream repository (or do a GitHub repository "move" into your account or a new organization so that existing users are redirected to your fork). -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
