On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Dave Neary <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Sivan Greenberg wrote: >> What if I want to change something or add functionality to an existing >> package? > > Then you should go through the submission process of the upstream (code) > project. This is why I make a clear distinction between package > maintainers (who ensure the latest software is packaged for a distro) > and project maintainers (who decide what that software will do). > >> For instance, what if I want to provide fixes or apply >> somebody else's fixes to improve the core UX in meego to be more >> suitable for the idea pad[0], and I do have the time for that. >> [0]: http://bugs.meego.com/show_bug.cgi?id=10739 > > We're getting to the heart of the matter now. Let's say that you decided >> Where do we stand with regard to that? I hope mentioning packages >> need be abandoned to be cared for by the community does not imply >> that's core is mostly for Intel / Nokia or other funded stakeholders >> in the project? > > As you may have guessed, what I say is not any official word of the > project - I am employed by neither Nokia nor Intel, I'm just saying how > things happen elsewhere, and while we may be currently missing some > policies in MeeGo regarding how packages can get from a developer into > the hands of a user, I think it's not unreasonable to assume that things > will work similarly to other distros. > > If most core packages are maintained currently by Intel or Nokia people, > like I said, the path to maintainership is to help them with packaging > if it's needed, perhaps offer to take over packaging an app you > particularly like, or propose here the inclusion of a package not yet in > Core, that you are prepared to package & maintain. > > This is also, as far as I can tell, the way things work in Ubuntu, > Fedora, Debian, OpenSuse...
In Fedora there's no real hard and fast rule. Some packages have a single maintainer, some have a package "owner" and a number of co-maintainers. There's also two other categories. Proven Packages which basically have access to almost all packages (unless they have a restricted ACL for some reason) to allow them to push basic fixes etc. The other category is an architecture maintainer. This is for people maintaining secondary arches such as sparc/ppc etc and they have access to all packages to apply arch specific fixes. For eg I (co)maintain a number of fairly core packages even though I'm not employed by Redhat and have proven packager rights so I can push updates to most packages. It assists in quick turn around of fixes and is useful if a mass rebuild is needed as it allows lots of people to fix lots of small issues in packages quickly. Peter _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
