On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Nelson Marques <nmo.marques(a)gmail.com>wrote:
Following a previous thread debate about Unknown Horizons:
1) I'm available to maintain unknown-horizons (UH) in Fedora and EPEL
2) For 1) to happen I would like to maintain also FIFE, which doesn't
seem to see much love for quite some time; I ask this because FIFE
flagship product is UH itself and the development of both is very
close... A FIFE release always preceeds a UH release;
3) If 1) and 2) happen, then I need to maintain also python-enet,
which provides the python bindings for ENet. In case ENet needs some
love, then I don't mind taking it also.
For this to happen, I could use information on the following:
1) How to check who currently maintains those packages;
You can use the fedora pkgdb at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb
get into contact with the owners of the packages you can either file bugs
against the packages, or email packagename-owner@fedoraproject dot org.
2) The correct 'modus operandi' to take ownership of those
You generally don't "take ownership" of a package that someone else owns
in Fedora, except for when the owner expresses an interest in orphaning the
package and passing ownership along or the owner is non-responsive. You
can, however, apply to _co-maintain_ the package. In this case, you gain
rights to commit to the git branch and can submit updates for a package.
Co-maintainership is up to the discretion of the package owner, you can
apply to co-maintain in the pkgdb (if you are sponsored into the packaging
group,) but you should speak with the package owner first.
1) I already provide packages for Fedora and RHEL for at least 1 year
through OBS. This packages are the ones supported by upstream;
Providing them on Fedora means I would remove them from OBS and
replace the current information for Fedora users on UH main website;
That's nice, but Fedora has a much different workflow, especially if you're
working with other package owners to coordinate dependencies and avoid
breakages in the package collection.
2) I have been sharing jokes and enjoying UH experience with
upstream, so any issues found can properly be addressed to upstream
and a rapid response is expected;
Great! A good relationship with the project upstream is a plus for reports
3) In extreme situations I can take ownership of all dependencies
required (ex: guichan, scons, etc);
This is not necessary. You can work with the current maintainers if there
are any incompatibilities.
4) I don't know the Fedora way, so I would rather stick with
UH at the start and when I'm more confortable I can take ownership of
the rest of the dependencies;
May I suggest: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_responsibilities
Lurking on the -devel and -packaging lists and/or the fedora-devel IRC
channel are also good things to do if you have the time.
Is this OK? Should I re-open BZ718430?
You should be ok re-opening your review request and continuing the review.
You should also reach out to the FIFE maintainer as was suggested in the
previous thread, especially if you want to co-maintain FIFE (and perhaps he
can help you maintain UH as well)