Hi,
thanks for your constructive answer.
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, Quim Gil wrote:
> I advise you to to make some iterations more before looking after a TSG
> approval for this Debian Packaging working group.
I will gladly improve the proposal if you tell me what the remaining
problems are. In fact I started doing so following your comments below.
> You need to find the concrete points where this working group can be
> useful to the MeeGo project strategy and goals. Otherwise it is easy to
> consider this activity as unofficial or alternative, since it is not
> essential to the project goals.
That's the point of asking TSG blessing. Of course, it could be completely
unofficial (with separate repositories, mailing lists and all) but I
believe that Meego would benefit from avoiding fragmentation at that
level:
- it's beneficial to Meego since we satisfy the needs of more users (I
think the level of initial discussion on that topic shows that there's a
real demand for .deb support in Meego)
- it's easier for us to share the meego resources (repositories, OBS)
> You also need to propose the coordinators of the working group, who will
> be the ones interfacing directly to the TSG. Having someone with an
> official role in the MeeGo project definitely helps. This is also a
> reason why a first row of nominations is needed.
I don't have any role in the MeeGo project (yet) but I'm willing to
help as coordinator of the working group. I have modified the wiki page so
that coordinators stand out of the contributor list. I will gladly expand
the list to include someone else with an official Meego role but as you
point out, it's difficult at this point.
> Now, I'm not involved in any discussion or decision about packaging
> technologies and the future of this working group proposal. But if you
> want to know my opinion I think a point to look at is the objective fact
> that MeeGo developers targeting Nokia devices this year will need to
> deal with deb packages as well as rpm if they want to cover all the
> devices offering a MeeGo API. This means that at least someone at Nokia
> will need to work making life easier for those MeeGo developers. Some
> work in OBS and SDK will be needed.
Indeed, but I don't work at Nokia so I don't know who that someone is.
CCing meego-dev@ as that someone is more likely to read that list.
Please get in touch with me if you are that someone. :-)
I added a sentence in the wiki in the Rationale to that effect ("It also
makes it easier to offer an upgrade path for existing Maemo devices to
Meego.")
> alternative to the rpm based that is planned. If building such
> alternative is the only purpose of this working group and official MeeGo
> roles are not needed, then I wouldn't be surprised if the priority to
> recognize this working work as official is low. I guess such working
> group could still do all the necessary work using the MeeGo OBS and
> tools without any official approval from the TSG.
I think official approval is important to be legitimate in the community.
We will have to request commit access to all repositories for the purpose
of maintaining the debian directories for example. It's best if the TSG
blesses the people who are able to tell "foo can be trusted in terms of debian
packaging, he knows what he does, please grant him access to the
repositories".
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/
My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
