-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Henne Vogelsang wrote: ... >> Bug-tracking system. I think it's important to have a bug-tracking system up >> for contributed packages. Probably we don't need to discuss the advantages >> of >> that. > No need for yet another bugtracking system. We already have a bugzilla > up dont we? :)
Depends on how much we want to get weaved into Novell ;-) >> From the wiki: >> "Packages should be allowed from any source regardless of the packagers >> seniority or trust level." >> Are you serious? People should install random software on their systems? >> Trust >> is important here. If the first packages arrive which break user systems, ... > You are showing the classical reflex when it comes to this topic ;) You > immediately invent a "inner circle" of people that decide whats good and > whats bad. I understand that, that is my first reflex too. But thinking > about it, that approach has a lot of disadvantages. Its a bottleneck for > * packages > - A large sum of packages to handle by a small sum of people But unmaintained and/or badly written spec files must not make their way to the users. You can install it on your own PC, send it to some friends or put it on your website, but it must not be, say, automatically available through an installation source in YaST2, nor part of a trusted package repository. I might be wrong, but I think it's the latter we are talking about, aren't we ? ;) > * people > - For every inner circle there exists an outer circle. > You would need to organize the "transfer" of people from the outer > circle to the inner circle. That implys some other inner circle > that decides these things. It especially implies - - style guides - - rules - - reviews > * changes > - If youre in the outer circle you have to rely on the inner > circle to "implement" the change you want. Or you need to go trough > the "people" bottleneck to get into the inner circle yourself. I think that's required, indeed. If a package is not actively maintained by the person who is the designated maintainer, it should be given to someone else (or tagged as "unmaintained" and a "would you like to join in and maintain that package ? click here..." on a/the website). > You always end at some bottleneck if you want to contribute. > Thats not very open i think. Maybe, but I think we're talking about a federated, trusted source of packages. Everyone is free to put his RPMs on his website, but when it comes to having it from a trusted source, it's a different thing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not being "elite" here, I'd be very happy if we had a lot more good packagers join the move, and I'd even be willing to give away all my packages and stop baking RPMs alltogether, but we can't just let "anyone put anything" in the repository. Well, not into /that/ repository ;) - -- -o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/ /\\ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDHXjNr3NMWliFcXcRAjJnAJ4sjgii4WUj3jlnWjxhkRKeUO6sTACfcSOg G1JDEGEbExADsxaa5SkhiuI= =pW22 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
