-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:30:39AM -0700, Andrew David Wong wrote:
> On 2016-10-13 10:19, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:21:24PM +0000, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
> >> On 10/12/2016 10:16 PM, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> [...packagin 3rd party software...]
> >>> Any thoughts?
> >> I think it depends on whether the 3rd party software is meant to be
> >> upstreamed into Qubes OS.
> >> For example, in the case of my tools, I would like them to be
> >> upstreamed, therefore the ideal thing to do would be to incorporate them
> >> into the QubesOS Github org, and then add them as extra sources in the
> >> builder. That requires, of course, that Qubes OS the project provide a
> >> proper process for vetting for upstreaming, and upstreaming vetted
> >> software. Ultimately the Qubes OS devs end up controlling that
> >> software, and the future contribution process is simply based on pull
> >> requests.
> > This is generally a good idea, but I'm afraid some social effect: this
> > may look like taking the software away from the original author, taking
> > the credit for it. But on the other hand, the repository still will have
> > commit history, and "forked from ..." reference.
> > Andrew, any though on this aspect?
> We certainly should aim for a solution that allows authors to retain
> ownership of and control over their own software, as well as
> receive credit and recognition for it, if only because this is likely
> to promote more contributions from individuals who care (quite
> reasonably, IMHO) about those things.
> In options 1-4, the software ends up in a Qubes-owned repo no matter
> what, right? It's just a matter of whether it's the official QubesOS
> repo or a new repo we create specifically for that purpose.
Not necessary - option 3 is about keeping only build scripts (.spec,
etc) in our repository, but pull the actual source from upstream.
I'm somehow reluctant for creating a single multi-package repository,
mostly because qubes-builder (currently) does not support building a
single package from such repo. So updating a single package means
rebuilding all of them. But should be easy to fix - for example keep
packages in separate directories (which is good idea anyway) and only
point qubes-builder at those subdirectories.
> If we want to allow authors to retain control (on GitHub) of their
> own software (and not any other contributor's software), then it seems
> like the only option is to allow each author to host their own
> software under their own account (or an account they control).
> What if we just fork those repos (either into the official QubesOS
> account or into a separate one created for this purpose), then
> update the forks based on changes to the author-owned original
> repos (only accepting author-signed commits and/or tags, of course,
> and perhaps after a review process)? Isn't that essentially what
> we're already doing with i3, awesome, and yubikey?
> (Awesome yubikey are forked from repos owned by woju
> and you, so maybe those don't really count.)
Yes, this is the other option. The question here is: where should those
forks be (current github org or a new one) and how should be named
(original name, or some forced naming scheme like qubes-app-*)?
>  https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-desktop-linux-i3
> ]2] https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-desktop-linux-awesome
>  https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-app-yubikey
Invisible Things Lab
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.