Thanks Patrice for this help. On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Patrice Dumas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:07:40AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:EPEL >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL -- no changes I can see. > > I psopose to merge a simple text after 'EPEL for Contributors', see > below. >
Agreed. >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/About -- does this make sense to >> how EPEL is being used these days? > > It doesn't do harm, in my opinion. I find this page well written and > think that it can be kept as is. > Thanks I sometimes parse things really oddly so wanted to see if it made sense for people. >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/AskForFedoraPackageInEPEL -- seems ok. > > Right. > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/CommunicationPlan -- not sure this >> is current. > > I don't really see the interest of this page, it is largely duplicate of > the About page, and I think that the text is less clear. The faq links > to an entry in that page (ISV), though. What is interesting should be > merged in About, in my opinion. I agree. >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatus -- not current. > > I think that the list of fedora packagers not interested should be kept > and merged in the main EPEL/ContributorStatus page, the other list > removed, except for Ville entry which would also be in > EPEL/ContributorStatus. Then there should be a way to query from the > database all the maintainers that maintain at least one EL branch. I'll > mail Toshio to ask whether it is possible. And the text on this page > should certainly be shortened. I would like to see this page somehow automated.. which ithink you are doing. If its not automated, I think it should be removed. >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ -- rewrite time. > > I have read it, and I only found a reference to owners.list that should > be changed, but otherwise I don't see what's wrong. > Ok.. I think its more of the layout. We could get some help from docs on doing a FAQ better. >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies -- update > > I suggest remomving the > How will the repository actually look like? > part since it is both wrong and unuseful. > Agreed. > EPEL branching if Fedora maintainer does not react > is covered in more detail elsewhere. > > I am not sure that this section fits here: > Involve Employers: Packaging as a Job Duty > > Otherwise everything else looks good to me. > Ok. Thanks. >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/PackageMaintainer/GenericJobDescription >> -- review please > > Looks good. I don't really get the interest of this page, but it is > linked from many other docs, and I think that I have the background to > comment about that page. Ok I am not sure it was current with how package maintenance is 'defined' by say FESCO. I would prefer to have one 'definition' we linked to versus many. >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ReleaseManagers -- update/rewrite. > > I think that this page should better be rewritten from scratch. It would > be nice to have something about EPEL infrastructure, indeeed. > Yes I agee >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/SIG combine with about? > > I don't think this page is needed anymore. I would propose instead to > merge what is interesting in this page to the front EPEL page. The > contact information is already here, the only missing information is how > to join but it is so simple that it doesn't really requirers a specific > page, I think that a short text right after 'EPEL for Contributors' > should be enough, along: > Agreed. > Joining EPEL s as simple as being part of Fedora (e.g. be a part of the > packager group in the account system) and having a love for Enterprise > Linux. Details are in the [[EPEL/FAQ#Contributing_to_EPEL| FAQ entry on > contributing]]. > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Schedule -- MASSIVE CLEANUP > > Somebody from the steering commitee should certainly rewrite it. Ahem.. yes :). >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc -- dead tree > > Looks like a personnal list, can be kept but should not be linked from > anywhere. Currently it is linked from EPEL/Schedule, but this page has > to be rewritten anyway. > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/WishList ??? is this still useful. >> Basically what isn't wanted in EL-4/5? > > Maybe there could be instead a query to packagedb that shows packages > that don't have an EPEL branch. But I am not sure that it is very > interesting, in my personal case all the packages that are not in EPEL > are not there on purpose. > > Most is deprecated, and otherwise it is a duplicate of the list of > packagers not interested in EPEL. > > > As always I can do the changes I advocate if agreed. > I agree with several of the changes.. but would like to make sure we get at least 2 other eyes. And thankyou. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
