On Ter, 2016-10-18 at 19:59 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> 2016-10-18 18:46 GMT+02:00 Sérgio Basto <ser...@serjux.com>:
> > 
> > On Ter, 2016-10-18 at 09:45 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart@gmail.c
> > > om>
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 2016-10-18 15:36 GMT+02:00 Richard Shaw <hobbes1069@rpmfusion.o
> > > > rg>:
> > > > > 
> > > > > commit bb01bb1e4d390e5d61a697fba30f12c556c42a9e
> > > > > Author: Richard Shaw <hobbes1...@gmail.com>
> > > > > Date:   Tue Oct 18 08:36:45 2016 -0500
> > > > > 
> > > > >     Remove files from scm as now an archive is provided.
> > > > @Richard,
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry, but I don't understand why you have forked akmods in
> > > > your
> > > > namespace that way.
> > > > This is going to be more difficult to review the changes made.
> > > > 
> > > Sergio and I thought it was a good idea as SCM != Upstream and to
> > > give it a proper home. I don't see how it really makes anything
> > > more
> > > difficult, the changes are in github.
> > yes, I supported the idea, akmods should have a upstream source
> > like
> > others packages, kmodtool too , maybe we may put it in
> > https://github.com/rpmfusion-infra
> Well, you support the idea, but you still don't say why ?
> 
> To me this looks harder as we need to maintain ACL from the package
> and from the "upstream" sources.
> On large project, this seems appropriate, but on akmods/kmodtool are
> are lighter, it's just hide things behind another step.
> 
> With the current layout, we can have the akmods project forked in
> github from the package, and no worry if we are a rpms fork or the
> "upstream" project.
> 
> We are also reducing the reviewer range by removing the commit log
> from this project. Most people on this list might be more or less
> interested in kmod anyway.
> 
> And for what is upstream concerned, I think the real upstream of
> kmodtool/akmods should be "rpm" itself.
> 

I think we should merge kmodtool in akmods and put the sources
in rpmfusion-infra. 
If we want develop akmods we will develop in cgit ? (doesn't make sense
to me )  

Also I'd like add buildsys-build-rpmfusion to an archive, to have one
picture of all akmods system, am I missing any piece (of akmods system)
?

Disable akmods-shutdown by default ? why ? I don't agree and where is
the bug report ? 

Another note, I haven't give up on idea of have akmods package in main
package and reformulate all akmods2, maybe do an akmods3 but my ideas
still just ideas that I have and also I have many things to do before.



> @Richard, so thx for having reverted the change and for taking care
> of
> theses tools.

That is why I agreed with Richard, he have maintain it, so I think he
is allowed to archive it . 


Best regards,
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

Reply via email to