On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 09:01:00AM +0000, Paul Howarth wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 22:22:40 +0100
Emmanuel Seyman <emmanuel(a)seyman.fr> wrote:
> Hello, folks.
> A while back, a few of us went through a mad rush to get our packages
> in EPEL. This lead to a number of situations where the main
> maintainer of a package didn't want to maintain the EPEL8 version of
> his package and we had to wait for a proven-packager to push to the
> I'ld like to propose we create a perl-packagers-sig group so that we
> can have non-proven packagers being able to git push.
> Thoughts? Opinions? Rotten tomatoes?
This is fine by me but would mainly need buy-in from the packagers that
don't want to support EPEL as they'd have to have perl-packagers-sig
group added to their packages and they might have concerns about other
people committing updates in the Fedora branches.
Moreover the group can be perceived as a proxy hiding the real packagers into
a fog of anonymity. Read whoever becomes a member of the group, including in
the far future, can push into my package, in that future. If I were against
approving people, I would be definitly against approving opaque groups.
The group could help decrease the bureaucracy when maintainers agree. But I'd
still prefer a Fedora maintainer to maintain the EPEL. Because when a Fedora
maintainer decides whether to push a new version to an older Fedora, can also
decide on EPEL. Having two different maintainers means doubling the work.
I can confess that I would forgot on my EPEL packages otherwise. Therefore
I will probably still keep asking Fedora maintainers whether they want to do
the package in EPEL themselves.
Emanuel, I think you should create the group, let's see whether it becomes
used and useful.