On 4/6/2011 7:58 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 04/06/2011 12:49 PM, Sergio Belkin wrote:
>>> The process is still under review really, and ideally we would only want
>>> to accept packages from people where they are a part of ( or have commit
>>> access ) to the upstream for the code.
>> If I undertand well, package it must be in upstream ie RH to be
>> included in the official repo distro, mustn't it?
>
> No. It means that we want the actual project commit'ers to get involved.
> eg. if mariadb was to be added into extras, someone who is a developer
> with commit access in the mariadb project would need to get involved.
> Similarly for postgresql, if there was to be a postgresql 9 in
> centosplus, it would need to come through with some level of 'stake
> ownership' from within that project. These are just two examples,
> hopefully clearing up the situation. If there is still some confusion,
> ask and I will try again.
>
> In many cases, packagers are not close enough to the upstream project to
> ensure continuity and sync in both directions. Also, there already exist
> quite a few resources for 'packagers' to get involved into.
>
> imho, and this is my personal opinion, not that of the CentOS Project :
> we should only open up to packager driven[1] rpm contributions if there
> is a real problem to be solved by doing that.
Are there any guidelines as to what should be in centosplus as opposed
to some third party repo usable by RHEL, centos, and other rebuilds?
And if they are more current versions of something included in the base
distro, whether they should replace the stock package or be an
alternatively-named package that can co-exist - or if both approaches
are permitted, what guidelines would be used for the choice.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com