How do we distinguish packages in the Playground repo from those in the Fedora's main repo?
Proposal: Do not try to distinguish them. Rpmfusion packages also don't have different dist tag. You can find out if really want to by rpm -something or check key, which will be also different.
Let's use the same system, which we used for approval of Playground repo: mirroring. No disapproval on mailing list means approval on next meeting.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Playground_repository_%28draft...
On 03/26/2014 02:54 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
How do we distinguish packages in the Playground repo from those in the Fedora's main repo?
Proposal: Do not try to distinguish them. Rpmfusion packages also don't have different dist tag. You can find out if really want to by rpm -something or check key, which will be also different.
Let's use the same system, which we used for approval of Playground repo: mirroring. No disapproval on mailing list means approval on next meeting.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Playground_repository_%28draft...
It's close to next question: Does the review differ depending on who is building the package (cla+1 vs in the packager group)? Let's say all Playground repositories packagers has to have cla+1, which means they know enough about Legal, so they have to have it right.
Marcela
On 03/26/2014 08:13 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
On 03/26/2014 02:54 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
How do we distinguish packages in the Playground repo from those in the Fedora's main repo?
Proposal: Do not try to distinguish them. Rpmfusion packages also don't have different dist tag. You can find out if really want to by rpm -something or check key, which will be also different.
Let's use the same system, which we used for approval of Playground repo: mirroring. No disapproval on mailing list means approval on next meeting.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Playground_repository_%28draft...
It's close to next question: Does the review differ depending on who is building the package (cla+1 vs in the packager group)? Let's say all Playground repositories packagers has to have cla+1, which means they know enough about Legal, so they have to have it right.
I wouldn't say that just from having cla+1 we can say anything about packages these people produce. Anyway, cla+1 requirement seems fine to me, since IIUIC, that means the person has some sponsor who should watch his steps, right? It still can be real beginner with no deeper knowledge, though.
Honza
Marcela _______________________________________________ env-and-stacks mailing list env-and-stacks@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/env-and-stacks
On 03/27/2014 05:04 AM, Honza Horak wrote:
On 03/26/2014 08:13 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
On 03/26/2014 02:54 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
How do we distinguish packages in the Playground repo from those in the Fedora's main repo?
Proposal: Do not try to distinguish them. Rpmfusion packages also don't have different dist tag. You can find out if really want to by rpm -something or check key, which will be also different.
Let's use the same system, which we used for approval of Playground repo: mirroring. No disapproval on mailing list means approval on next meeting.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Playground_repository_%28draft...
It's close to next question: Does the review differ depending on who is building the package (cla+1 vs in the packager group)? Let's say all Playground repositories packagers has to have cla+1, which means they know enough about Legal, so they have to have it right.
I wouldn't say that just from having cla+1 we can say anything about packages these people produce. Anyway, cla+1 requirement seems fine to me, since IIUIC, that means the person has some sponsor who should watch his steps, right? It still can be real beginner with no deeper knowledge, though.
Honza
True, but that's a problem of the sponsor, isn't it :)
Marcela
On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 15:13 -0400, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
It's close to next question: Does the review differ depending on who is building the package (cla+1 vs in the packager group)? Let's say all Playground repositories packagers has to have cla+1, which means they know enough about Legal, so they have to have it right.
As I argued previously, I wish the review would encompass a little more checks that just making sure that the package passes the Licensing guidelines/policy.
Also, if we decide to go with the (semi)automatic reviews, the automatic part of the review wouldn't need differ depending on the packager since we would get it for *free* (i.e. very quickly). The (smaller) manual part could differ. For example, a packager could do a self-review if he has cla+1, otherwise he would need a review by some other packager with cla+1.
Tadej
On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 14:54 -0400, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
How do we distinguish packages in the Playground repo from those in the Fedora's main repo?
Proposal: Do not try to distinguish them. Rpmfusion packages also don't have different dist tag. You can find out if really want to by rpm -something or check key, which will be also different.
+1.
One thing that will lessen the need for distinguishing the packages is that the Playground repo will not provide newer versions of existing packages in the main repository (BTW, have we reached consensus on that yet?). Hence, there will be no problems with improperly filed bug reports in Bugzilla (as can be the case with COPRs).
The way Copr solves the problem of distinguishing the packages is by providing a custom Vendor tag of the form: Fedora Project COPR (<user>/<project>)
Maybe we could also use the same system and go with something like: Fedora Project Playground repository What do you think?
Of course, the signing key will also be different.
Tadej
On 04/01/2014 01:00 PM, Tadej Janež wrote:
On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 14:54 -0400, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
How do we distinguish packages in the Playground repo from those in the Fedora's main repo?
Proposal: Do not try to distinguish them. Rpmfusion packages also don't have different dist tag. You can find out if really want to by rpm -something or check key, which will be also different.
+1.
One thing that will lessen the need for distinguishing the packages is that the Playground repo will not provide newer versions of existing packages in the main repository (BTW, have we reached consensus on that yet?). Hence, there will be no problems with improperly filed bug reports in Bugzilla (as can be the case with COPRs).
I guess we didn't.
The way Copr solves the problem of distinguishing the packages is by providing a custom Vendor tag of the form: Fedora Project COPR (<user>/<project>)
Maybe we could also use the same system and go with something like: Fedora Project Playground repository What do you think?
Could be easy to do.
Of course, the signing key will also be different.
Tadej
env-and-stacks mailing list env-and-stacks@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/env-and-stacks
Marcela
On 04/01/2014 01:00 PM, Tadej Janež wrote:
The way Copr solves the problem of distinguishing the packages is by providing a custom Vendor tag of the form: Fedora Project COPR (<user>/<project>)
Maybe we could also use the same system and go with something like: Fedora Project Playground repository What do you think?
How can you do that without rebuilding package?
env-and-stacks@lists.fedoraproject.org