[CentOS-devel] RFC: Alternative Desktop SIG

Manuel Wolfshant wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro
Fri Mar 14 23:32:07 UTC 2014



On 15 martie 2014 00:44:29 EET, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:

>> How would this apply to something like EPEL, which in el6 has XFCE
>> packaged. Would it be acceptable to pull that in, or would that
>simply
>> count as 1 of the 3?
>>
>>
>That was something that I figured would also need to be planned for.
>Where
>do these packages live? Who is caring for them? My initial viewpoint is
>that it would be nice if the people on a desktop were co-maintainers on
>the
>package set if it were in EPEL.

Beware that - leaving sponsorship aside - becoming an EPEL maintainer implies accepting the Fedora EULA. I know of people who refused to /could not become Fedora contributors because they could/would not accept that license.


> The main thing is to try and make sure that stuff gets accidentally abandoned
"gets" or "does not get" ?  :)


>
>> > 4) Some level of governance needs to be established so that there
>is a
>> > committee that can make sure that a desktop has 'sponsors', that it
>is
>> not
>> > just code thrown over a wall and left, and that users are not left
>> > surprised when updates to the desktop occur. They may also make up
>> > packaging rules and guidelines as needed to alleviate problems that
>come
>> up.
I'd say it makes sense to follow the Fedora packaging rules, updated for use in our SIGs env. For instance one Fedora rule which needs to be excluded is the recently adopted one which drops packaging of SystemV initscripts.



More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list