Dne 27.5.2016 v 18:24 Mo Morsi napsal(a): > On 05/20/2016 06:57 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Hi everybody, >> >> >> You probably noticed, that there is ongoing build of all Python packages >> in Copr [1] and today, I was approached by Miroslav Suchý, that he'd >> like to do the same for rubygems. And this in turn triggered these >> questions: >> >> 1) Would you be interested to create ruby-sig group in FAS? We could >> make the group owner of some packages and in turn, the members of the >> group could maintain the packages, without explicitly asking for some >> ACLs. >> >> 2) For the Copr rebuild of rubygems, there needs to be some FAS group >> again. Python guys are asking for "pypi-builds-sig" group [2], hence >> following their lead, I'd like to ask for "rubygems-builds-sig" group >> (note that although I don't like the '-sig' suffix in this case, it is >> mandated by the infrastructure ticket template). >> >> >> So what are your thoughts? >> >> >> Vít >> >> > > The FAS groups seem reasonable. Should reduce packaging overhead if > all goes as intended. > > Is the idea behind the copr repo to eventually remove the build from > the main distro repositories? Or will they live side by side? (with > different intents / workflows)
I don't think this has anything to do with the main repo. They will live side by side. I'd say that the level of support and assurance will be always different. E.g. the package in the main repo must undergone review, they are maintained by their human maintainer, while the packages in Copr will be converted to rpm by script, there won't be executed test suite, etc. V. _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
