On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 10:44:05AM +0100, Matej Cepl wrote:
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:26:36 +0100, Patrice Dumas scripst:
> Because I think that being upstream and the primary maintainer of a
> package in fedora (or any distro) is not a very good idea. If there are
> conflict of interest between upstream and the distro (think about name
> space, install paths, quality), I think that having a maintainer who is
> not the primary upstream maintainer is a good thing. Having upstream
> co-maintain, or even do the packaging work is a good idea, but I think
> that upstream should not have the last saying for the package.
Well, I would be bothered with stuff like this for some huge packages
(OOo), but I don't think (with all due respect to your utility) one
reasonable guy should IMHO be able to keep two hats on his head. And you
wouldn't be the first one (by far).
I have seen a lot of reviews where this issue shows up, upstream being
willing to put an app in fedora, but not for fedora, in order to gain a
wider audience. Those conflicts were easily seen. I don't want to be in
that situation. If my app is good enough somebody else will package it
(and I will gladly review it).