https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1620568

Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|1576812 |

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576812 [Bug 1576812] thefuck-3.27 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1620568

--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Also you need to give this package a proper name. The package name and the name of this review must be the same, "kernel" obviously won't work as it would conflict.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1620568

Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |i.ucar86@gmail.com

--- Comment #4 from Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com --- I don't think that submitting a kernel package is acceptable. The kernel is a core component, and it's a responsibility of the Fedora Engineering team. Specific versions of the kernel should be managed in separate repositories, as Linux vanilla kernels: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kernel_Vanilla_Repositories

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1620568

Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |i.ucar86@gmail.com

--- Comment #6 from Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com --- (In reply to clime from comment #5)

In my opinion as an observer, the main think is to name the package differently, then there is going to be no conflict.

There is a thread in fedora-devel where they were talking about this kernel, and about the possibility of porting some of the patches to Fedora: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/...

The conclusion was that many of these patches are Intel-specific, so it wouldn't be a good idea to port them to Fedora, because it would harm its aim. Someone proposed that the way to go was to maintain this in a Copr, and Manas volunteered.

Anyway, I don't know of any other kernel version accepted in the main repos with other name, and the packaging guidelines and policies talk about *the* kernel, as if there was just one. So at the very least, I think that someone from the kernel team should take a look at this ticket.

By the way, you can get the links to srpm and spec from the build in Copr https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/pac23/ High_Performance_Clear_LInux_kernel_for_Fedora/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/ 00777716-kernel/

Robert-André knows how to get the SPEC and the SRPM from a Copr repo, but that's not the procedure. There is even a template when you open a review request to link them, so that the reviewer can use the fedora-review tool just with the bug ID.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1620568

--- Comment #8 from Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com --- (In reply to clime from comment #7)

I was pointing that out to the review reporter, not to Robert but thanks for pointing out some additional resources.

Ah, sorry, that makes more sense. :)

BTW, do you know who to ping about this? I asked in #fedora-kernel, but got no response.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1620568

--- Comment #10 from Manas Mangaonkar manasmangaonkar@gmail.com ---

Robert-André knows how to get the SPEC and the SRPM from a Copr repo, but that's not the procedure. There is even a template when you open a review request to link them, so that the reviewer can use the fedora-review tool just with the bug ID.

Hey,i am rebuilding it with some fixes,will file a new review request with the proper links.

Imo this should stay as a copr repo/package rather than merging it in the main repo's unless the the kernel team thinks so.I dont really know what the procedure is.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1620568

Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2018-08-27 10:12:39

--- Comment #12 from Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com --- (In reply to Iñaki Ucar from comment #9)

For the record, I asked the Fedora Packaging Committee: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/791

This is not allowed according to the feedback above, so I'm closing this issue.

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1620568

--- Comment #14 from Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com --- Third comment by labbott:

I thought this was documented somewhere on the kernel wiki (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kernel) but I guess not. One kernel has been the policy for a very long time. If you're interested in changing this, I suggest working through the Fedora change process to review what needs to be done.

I got the same response from #fedora-kernel before that.

Now, we are mainly discussing where this should be documented.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1620568

Manas Mangaonkar manasmangaonkar@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |MODIFIED Resolution|NOTABUG |--- Keywords| |Reopened

--- Comment #16 from Manas Mangaonkar manasmangaonkar@gmail.com --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)

You should post direct links to the SPEC and SRPM.

https://github.com/Pac23/Kernel-Clear-Fed/releases - link to the src.rpm https://github.com/Pac23/Kernel-Clear-Fed/blob/master/kernel.spec - spec file link.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1620568

Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed|2018-08-27 10:12:39 |2018-09-09 13:36:03

--- Comment #18 from Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com --- Manas, as we discussed, this package is not allowed in the main repos, and that's why we closed this ticket. There's no point in posting the SPEC here or reopening it.

If you want feedback, you'll probably find people interested in this kernel flavour in the devel mailing list.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1620568

--- Comment #20 from Iñaki Ucar i.ucar86@gmail.com --- (In reply to Manas Mangaonkar from comment #19)

I did get feedback from those interested on the devel mailing list,i only filed this offical review request because i am seeking sponsorship as a packager/maintainer in fedora and this is a must.

And to get sponsored with a new package, you need to submit one that *can* be accepted in the main repos. This one cannot. So, please, select another software not already packaged in Fedora, ensure it is suitable for the main repos, and file *another* review request.

Also, read other submissions and comment on them to show prospective sponsors that you understand the guidelines.