[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: fedora-devel-list
Subject: Re: upstream wants me to rename my package
From: Gary Gatling <gsgatlin () ncsu ! edu>
Date: 2012-09-07 22:57:07
Message-ID: CAG5Ck-7vLAA4EGR4pD0OdQoNT+LGxTYeUYOi4Nt6fhDxmTC1=g () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> That's not usually something Fedora does. The package name takes the
> name of the upstream project, because the package *is* the delivery
> option for that software in Fedora. We do not care that much about
> upstream RPMs that random projects may distribute, because they are
> often not tailored to the specifics of Fedora. We as Fedora packagers
> are familiar with the requirements of Fedora, and if the upstream
> project really wants control over the Fedora package, then they should
> become Fedora packagers themselves.
>
I feel like maybe the name change is reasonable? Since he makes money
somehow off his rpms? And I wouldn't want his customers or whatever to have
their package clobbered by yum... (that is why I didn't push out into an
update in Bodhi yet in any branch)
But like everything else he is talking about, I feel its not my problem.
And I don't really care. Maybe thats evil/wrong of me?
Like, for example, If you want 2 packages to co-exist , then keep using
/opt (freaking non-standard) and also put your vglrun script in
/usr/local/bin/ so it "wins" and is first in the path and then their is no
rpm conflict (except maybe the docs? Need to think about it more maybe...)
but don't expect us to change our fedora packaging guidelines or our
package just because you believe in having static binaries, non system
headers, packages that do the same thing co-existing, etc. Rules are rules
for a reason. I know we wouldn't change these fundamentals but I also don't
think I should have to change anything other than the packages name at this
point. I told him to tell me if their were security updates, or critical
bugs and I would do likewise... Its all just weird to me his reaction.
Maybe others on this list have had similar reactions from developers of
open source software?
My opinion, at least.
>
> Dan
>
Thanks!
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Dan Williams <span \
dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dcbw@redhat.com" \
target="_blank">dcbw@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div \
class="im"> <br>
</div>That's not usually something Fedora does. The package name takes the<br>
name of the upstream project, because the package *is* the delivery<br>
option for that software in Fedora. We do not care that much about<br>
upstream RPMs that random projects may distribute, because they are<br>
often not tailored to the specifics of Fedora. We as Fedora packagers<br>
are familiar with the requirements of Fedora, and if the upstream<br>
project really wants control over the Fedora package, then they should<br>
become Fedora packagers themselves.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I feel like \
maybe the name change is reasonable? Since he makes money somehow off his rpms? And I \
wouldn't want his customers or whatever to have their package clobbered by yum... \
(that is why I didn't push out into an update in Bodhi yet in any branch)</div> \
<div><br></div><div>But like everything else he is talking about, I feel its not my \
problem. And I don't really care. Maybe thats evil/wrong of me? \
</div><div><br></div><div>Like, for example, If you want 2 packages to co-exist , \
then keep using /opt (freaking non-standard) and also put your vglrun script in \
/usr/local/bin/ so it "wins" and is first in the path and then their is no \
rpm conflict (except maybe the docs? Need to think about it more maybe...) but \
don't expect us to change our fedora packaging guidelines or our package just \
because you believe in having static binaries, non system headers, packages that do \
the same thing co-existing, etc. Rules are rules for a reason. I know we wouldn't \
change these fundamentals but I also don't think I should have to change anything \
other than the packages name at this point. I told him to tell me if their were \
security updates, or critical bugs and I would do likewise... Its all just weird to \
me his reaction. Maybe others on this list have had similar reactions from developers \
of open source software?</div> <div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> My opinion, at \
least.<br> <br>
Dan<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks! </div></div>
[Attachment #6 (text/plain)]
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic