Le samedi 28 juillet 2012 à 19:23 +0300, Damian Ivanov a écrit :
First Thanks for the link and the answer.
The guy ported it ten days later and it seems to work perfect now:
Yes, but that doesn't mean this is sustainable. from my experience, the
initial installation is always simple, the problem arise on upgrade, on
In the case of OBS, there is a few question to answer :
- does it integrate well with bodhi ? ( since that's a critical part of
the whole Fedora workflow ), or is it too tied to the Factory model of
- does it have adequate security for audit and signing of who did what.
While I guess the answer is yes for audit, there is pretty specific
requirement and setup for Fedora )
- does it still use a non standard backend ( last time I looked, it was
something specific, and not a vcs, but there was plan to migrate to git
Anyway, if you wish to do so, I think the first part would be to
integrate it so it can be installed from EPEL, which would at least show
it can be reused without trouble. There is some software that are hard
to reuse ( launchpad, gitorious ) and that sysadmin would prefer not to
take care of.
Second the problem with koji is that I have no web interface. I am
one of the maintainers of the experimental unity for Fedora and I do a few other
packages at home:damianator on OBS. I do lot of the spec file editing,
using the web interface from windows, because I can't have Linux on
this one (long story).
But how do you test your package if you do not have a linux system ?
And what about trying to port client tool like fedpkg to windows instead
( that's just python after all ).
Also for some people that want to manage their applications for
multiple distributions is the *only*
logical (administrative-able) option, correct me if you have something
more encouraged by Fedora that has the same capabilities,
I will be happy to use it.
But offering build for multiple distributions is not a goal of Fedora,