On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:23:20AM +1100, Colin Charles wrote:
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 20:12 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> For one I fail to see any connection of the issues at hand (GFS kernel
> modules) with extras, so forcing people to contribute to extras just
> because they want to contribute to FC/RHEL seems to be very wrong.
You mentioned kernel module packaging, and a post was referenced that
was stuck on fedora-maintainers. You complained that this wasn't exactly
a very open way of doing things
Jef mentioned becoming an Extras packager, so that you get on the
fedora-maintainers list. And now you fail to see the connection?
Yes, because this is not a subject to be discussed on a closed
list. It certainly affects more than extras, core and rhel. In fact
this discussion is more about ISVs like the dozens of 3rd party repos
and driver packagers.
>From the fedora-maintainers listinfo page:
"This is the list for maintainers of packages in Fedora Core and Fedora
Extras. Subscription to this list is contingent on one of these two
criteria."
So, if you get involved with the process, you get on the list.
I'm not talking about maintaining any specific package, this is about
infrastructure and naming/versioning schemes.
Otherwise, following the discussion is still possible, thanks to
fedora-
maintainers-readonly
Now what's incredibly unfair with getting involved with the process to
contribute to The Fedora Project? No one's forcing you to contribute to
Extras; you just have to meet one of the two criteria
AFAIK a signed agreement is needed.
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net