On 23.11.2007 16:04, Michael Stahnke wrote:
On Nov 21, 2007 2:21 PM, Karsten Wade <kwade(a)redhat.com>
> We've done a fair job of attracting Fedora packagers to EPEL.
> Now we need to get all the other audiences to get involved, as package
> users, packagers, testers, and general community members:
If this somehow means getting more packages into EPEL, then I am all
for it. I hate to advertise too early however for the general user of
EPEL. Right now several packages I use all the time are not in EPEL
and my team keeps asking to use other 3rd party repos. I am not sure
what the package count differences are between FC6-extras and EPEL
EL5, but I would be it's almost half. I know most perl stuff isn't
there (though that's getting better) and many other projects just
I would like to send out emails to the package maintainers one more
time, wait X days and then just branch them and have new
co-maintainers added in EPEL land.
That's IMHO the wrong way -- if we have people that want to act like
co-maintainers in the way you outline then that people should look out
for packages they might want to maintain in EPEL, ask the Fedora
maintainer if he or she is willing to maintain that package in EPEL. If
the Fedora maintainer then does not answer or expresses that he or she
is not willing then the people you have in mind should become the EPEL
maintainer (aka co-maintainer) and request the EPEL branch. I'm
optimistic that above should work, but it likely needs some to drive and
coordinate it. Actually I have that on my todo-list, but didn't get
around to it. :-/
With the way you outline I fear we might end up with lots of packages in
EPEL without maintainer or with maintainers that have to take care of
hundreds of packages or packages that they are not interested in.
IOW: I think getting bigger is important for EPEL, but getting big to
fast is not good for the quality of EPEL.
One thing that would be helpful here is a slightly easier way to get
sponsored -- currently you have to submit a package to Fedora to get
into a position to be able to maintain packages for EPEL. That hindering
and likely not what some EL-only-contributers want (¹).
I am happy to help somehow though. Next week I am hoping to get a
list of the most requested packages from my company and at least get
those contributors notified that we would like their package in EPEL.
Of course this really doesn't account for EL4, but I tend to
most organizations have found their solution for extra packages for
their EL4 systems by now.
/me suspects smooge might disagree, and he has a valid point, but I
think getting EPEL4 big is a big task that requires much work; I'm not
sure if that's worth the trouble. But If people show up to do that work:
sure, why not!
(¹) -- if you are a EPEL user and not a Fedora contributer yet but want
to maintain existing Fedora packages for EPEL please let me know in
private; I'm sure we can find ways to get you sponsored.