On 09/14/2015 09:57 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2015-09-14 at 16:54 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 12 September 2015 at 04:10, Adam Williamson
> <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> I agree that the discussion here needs to be more broad-based; see
>> the
>> other thread fork. I was just providing support for Stephen's
>> contention that this is not some airy-fairy theoretical problem,
>> there
>> are multiple examples of real things that people *wanted* to have
>> packaged that are not packaged because the unbundling process was
>> too
>> onerous.
>
> This is the idea behind COPR and Fedora Playground though - ensuring
> that packages that are *legally* acceptable for redistribution are
> easy to publish and consume for Fedora and EPEL users, while still
> being clearly distinct from the ones that have passed full review
> against the packaging guidelines.
>
> What we haven't managed to do yet is update the package review
> process
> to better account for the distinction, such as by adopting a "COPR
> first" model, where folks put a package up in COPR with bundled
> components, and then either keep it there indefinitely, or
> collaborate
> with others on the unbundling effort.
Just to be awkward - I kinda found working with COPRs a PITA the only
time I tried it and went back to using my own server space. This of
course isn't an option for everyone, but it *is* an option for some of
us who are already packaging stuff, and maybe I'm not the only one who
prefers it? :)
COPR is getting better all the time and I find it pretty usable these days.
The big hurdle now for actually supporting packaging efforts in it IMO is lack
of permission controls.
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301
http://www.nwra.com