Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 06:37:00PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > I was under the impression that everything in Fedora was MIT licensed > > unless otherwise specified as per: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Licenses/LicenseAgreement > > Is that incorrect? > That's enforced through the FPCA.

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Adam Miller wrote: > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Matthew Miller > wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >>> (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >> (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git) > > I know Richard Fontana has expressed some interest in reducing the need > for

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Sun, 2017-06-04 at 08:50 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Do you think we could change this to check: > - has the user rights on that particular package? > - is the user a member of the packager group? I believe it does both of these currently. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 12:36:28PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > El dom, 04-06-2017 a las 08:52 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon escribió: > > On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 01:31:50PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > > >On 3 Jun 2017 8:33 am, "Pierre-Yves Chibon" > > > wrote: > > > >

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

El dom, 04-06-2017 a las 08:52 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon escribió: > On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 01:31:50PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > >On 3 Jun 2017 8:33 am, "Pierre-Yves Chibon" > > wrote: > > > >I think to abandon the packager group for non-scratch builds > >

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

El sáb, 03-06-2017 a las 09:32 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon escribió: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 08:52:22PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > With the deprecation of pkgdb2, pagure will make it even easier > > >

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > El lun, 05-06-2017 a las 07:42 -0400, Neal Gompa escribió: >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:39 AM, wrote: >> > Spec files are licensed under mit license the same as fedora as a >> > whole. >> > >> >> Not

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

El lun, 05-06-2017 a las 07:42 -0400, Neal Gompa escribió: > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:39 AM, wrote: > > Spec files are licensed under mit license the same as fedora as a > > whole. > > > > Not always. Most of the time, they are, yes. But if someone chose a > Free Software

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 11:35:46PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 07:24:36PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:42:20PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > > > On 04/06/17 14:22, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > Sorry to push on this some

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

There is also groups in fas for alternate architectures. On top of CVS admin and proven packager, that all some how have to be tied into the ACLS. Proven packager give you access to everything except for the Mozilla packages and the others give access to everything. Dennis On 2 June 2017

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:39 AM, wrote: > Spec files are licensed under mit license the same as fedora as a whole. > Not always. Most of the time, they are, yes. But if someone chose a Free Software license other than that or if the spec file was from the upstream project, it's

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

Spec files are licensed under mit license the same as fedora as a whole. Dennis On 2 June 2017 3:07:15 pm GMT-05:00, Matthew Miller wrote: >On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >> (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git)

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 07:24:36PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:42:20PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > > On 04/06/17 14:22, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:10:13PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > > > > On 04/06/17 13:20, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:42:20PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 04/06/17 14:22, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:10:13PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > > > On 04/06/17 13:20, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:15:19PM +0200, Michal Schorm wrote: > > >

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On 04/06/17 14:22, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:10:13PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: On 04/06/17 13:20, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:15:19PM +0200, Michal Schorm wrote: Is there some place I could read about this? The rest of the email didn't make

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:10:13PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 04/06/17 13:20, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:15:19PM +0200, Michal Schorm wrote: > >>>Is there some place I could read about this? The rest of the email > >>>didn't make much sense without this context I

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On 04/06/17 13:20, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:15:19PM +0200, Michal Schorm wrote: Is there some place I could read about this? The rest of the email didn't make much sense without this context I am missing.

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:15:19PM +0200, Michal Schorm wrote: > > Is there some place I could read about this? The rest of the email > > didn't make much sense without this context I am missing. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/WhatHappenedToPkgdb Still unclear. As far as

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

> Is there some place I could read about this? The rest of the email > didn't make much sense without this context I am missing. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/WhatHappenedToPkgdb -- Michal Schorm Associate Software Engineer Core Services - Databases Team Red Hat

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > With pagure becoming a front-end to dist-git, I have been wondering about the > future of the packager group. Is there some place I could read about this? The rest of the email didn't make much sense without this context I am

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 05:02:39PM +0200, Till Maas wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > The packager group is currently used for a few things: > > - tracking purpose, it's one of our biggest groups and also one of the most > > active > > - members

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 01:31:50PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote: >On 3 Jun 2017 8:33 am, "Pierre-Yves Chibon" wrote: > >I think to abandon the packager group for non-scratch builds would be a >mistake. >The sponsorship to packager status is an important part of

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 03:12:48PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 21:42 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > What do you think? > > Bodhi also currently cares about users being in the packager group to > decide whether they can create buildroot overrides (I think, not >

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Sat, 2017-06-03 at 09:32 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Bodhi I believe also check this, maybe Randy could confirm this. I think I just answered this in another e-mail. Let me know if you need more info. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 21:42 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > What do you think? Bodhi also currently cares about users being in the packager group to decide whether they can create buildroot overrides (I think, not actually 100% sure). It uses pkgdb to decide whether a user has access to create

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > The packager group is currently used for a few things: > - tracking purpose, it's one of our biggest groups and also one of the most > active > - members of the packager group can do official package review > - members of the

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 01:31:50PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > If I had the opportunity to choose the setup I think I'd lean towards, > anyone can authenticate to the dist-git via pagure (I'd even lean towards a > full open setup via oauth etc and not fedora account only). Anyone can PR > that

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On 3 Jun 2017 8:33 am, "Pierre-Yves Chibon" wrote: On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 08:52:22PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > With the deprecation of pkgdb2, pagure will make it even easier to give

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 08:52:22PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > With the deprecation of pkgdb2, pagure will make it even easier to give > > someone > > access to a package, if someone wants to help you maintain

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > With the deprecation of pkgdb2, pagure will make it even easier to give > someone > access to a package, if someone wants to help you maintain a package, you can > just grant them access to the project on pagure. They will only

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:16:16PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > As we're moving things, can we do something in Pagure to cover this, so > > the FPCA isn't needed here? > Note that pagure running at pagure.io no longer requires FPCA, I was here > speaking about the pagure instance running

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 04:07:15PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git) > > I know Richard Fontana has expressed some interest in reducing the need > for FPCA. Maybe this is

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >> (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git) > > I know Richard Fontana has expressed some interest in reducing the need > for

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git) I know Richard Fontana has expressed some interest in reducing the need for FPCA. Maybe this is an opportunity to move in that direction? I know Spot has said that

Re: The future of the packager group for dist-git

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Good Morning Everyone, > > With pagure becoming a front-end to dist-git, I have been wondering about the > future of the packager group. > > The packager group is currently used for a few things: > - tracking purpose, it's one

The future of the packager group for dist-git

Good Morning Everyone, With pagure becoming a front-end to dist-git, I have been wondering about the future of the packager group. The packager group is currently used for a few things: - tracking purpose, it's one of our biggest groups and also one of the most active - members of the packager