On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 01:05, seth vidal wrote:

...

• It would be nice to see Zope (http://www.zope.org) get into the core.

What about starting out by getting packages for zope into fedora.us? Would you be willing to maintain those packages?

Hi Seth,

Absolutely. I just need to read the Wiki to see how to actually get the packages up there.

- C

Matthias Saou, the freshrpms guy already has Zope & Plone packages for Fedora Core 2 in testing:

http://ftp.us.freshrpms.net/pub/freshrpms/fedora/linux/testing/2/zope-plone/

A.

Aurelien Bompard wrote:

...

I just need to read the Wiki to see how to actually get the packages up there.

Hi Chris

I'd love to see Zope in Fedora too :-) If you haven't done the package yet, you can have a look at the one in Mandrake, it is made by Stefane Fermigier (from Nuxeo - CPS). Else, package submission is described here: http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackageSubmissionQAPolicy and partially here : http://www.ilsw.com/~erik/fedora-qa-quickstart.html (hmm, 404, try google cache here : http://tinyurl.com/38m4x)

Bye

Aurélien

Le mer, 28/04/2004 à 05:15 -0400, Chris McDonough a écrit :

Ack! I just spent a long time doing some packaging in prep for upload too... I should have done more homework.

Though this does not mean getting a version in fedora.us would be a bad thing. Quite the contrary.

Cheers,

Le mer, 28/04/2004 à 05:36 -0400, Chris McDonough a écrit :

On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 05:18, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

...

Le mer, 28/04/2004 à 05:15 -0400, Chris McDonough a écrit :

...

Ack! I just spent a long time doing some packaging in prep for upload too... I should have done more homework.

Though this does not mean getting a version in fedora.us would be a bad thing. Quite the contrary.

Sorry, I'm a little new, so I don't understand.. the fedora.us repo is not connected to the freshrpms repo in any meaningful way? If not, would it be considered "bad form" for me to take steps to get my (slightly different) SRPM uploaded into the fedora.us repo? I suppose I should just work this out with Matthias, but it would be useful to understand the relationship between freshrpms Fedora repo and the fedora.us repo before I do.

FWIW, Matthias appears to have based his spec file on one that I wrote a while ago, so they're not *too* much different, although they do install to different directories and mine obeys the Fedora naming conventions and whatnot.

fedora.us have some heavier procedures to ensure package quality. Some top packagers including Matthias decided not to bother with them and maintain their own repo (very simplistic summary). You can however take their SPECS, submit them to fedora and go through the QA process for them (and in turn they're welcome to take back the changes QA proposed and get them in their own specs)

I do use freshrpms/dag stuff myself sometimes. For software I intend to depend on long-term, I try to get it in fedora.us, because of stricter QA, RedHat direct involvment, etc.

Cheers,

On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 03:31, Chris McDonough wrote:

On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 05:48, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

...

fedora.us have some heavier procedures to ensure package quality. Some top packagers including Matthias decided not to bother with them and maintain their own repo (very simplistic summary). You can however take their SPECS, submit them to fedora and go through the QA process for them (and in turn they're welcome to take back the changes QA proposed and get them in their own specs)

Thanks for the explanation! I understand now. I will try to run the gauntlet with my SRPM then without contacting Matthias.

• C

One thing I suggest - Try to get a spec file that builds with vanilla rpm (IE no distro specific macros) into the upstream source tree, if there isn't one already. If there is one upstream already, try to be as close to it as you can (and suggest patch to their spec file if they do something that is just plain wrong - which is fairly common)

Best way to do it is to create a spec.in file - so that package version and even sometimes dependency versions can be generated automatically reducing maintenance of the spec file (IE use @VERSION@ for the version instead of a static version number)

In addition to the spec.in being created, you also will need to tell configure to create the spec file (so it gets created with make dist) and you need to tell the Makefile that the spec file gets put into the tarball for a make dist.

The spec file for the vanilla source should not have any patches obviously (it should build with just wget tarball && rpmbuild -tb tarball). But if there is a properly written spec file in the vanilla source, it then becomes easier for different distro's to take that spec file and tailor it to their own needs (customize configure switches, add custom patches etc.) while still having their rpm's similar enough in package layout that there is less confusion in userland with respect to which subpackage has what in it.

Chris McDonough wrote :

On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 05:48, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

...

fedora.us have some heavier procedures to ensure package quality. Some top packagers including Matthias decided not to bother with them and maintain their own repo (very simplistic summary). You can however take their SPECS, submit them to fedora and go through the QA process for them (and in turn they're welcome to take back the changes QA proposed and get them in their own specs)

Thanks for the explanation! I understand now. I will try to run the gauntlet with my SRPM then without contacting Matthias.

Yeah, there's no need to :-D Just FYI, the init script in my Zope package still needs to be improved. The way Zope's startup and shutdown is done makes it tricky to integrate cleanly. Other than that, I've been using Plone with those packages on some servers without any problems.

Matthias

On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 06:31:38AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:

On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 05:48, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

...

fedora.us have some heavier procedures to ensure package quality. Some top packagers including Matthias decided not to bother with them and maintain their own repo (very simplistic summary).

That is too simplistic and gets close to a myth. In fact almost all current bigger repos existed before fedora.us and were thrilled by the idea of getting a common project going. It turned out that fedora.us was not interested in a cooperation but more in a cloning (primarily of freshrpms then) and competition.

This is what drove repo maintainers back. Personally I favour heavy procedures.

...

You can however take their SPECS, submit them to fedora and go through the QA process for them (and in turn they're welcome to take back the changes QA proposed and get them in their own specs)

Or you refrain from creating even more overlaps/incompatibilities and submit your changes right into freshrpms.

Thanks for the explanation! I understand now. I will try to run the gauntlet with my SRPM then without contacting Matthias.

Bad idea, but I see that the communication was initiated nevertheless (good! :).

On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 18:13, Chris McDonough wrote:

I hope to be able to submit the result into fedora.us once I can solve an issue

Oh, and I meant to mention that if Matthias wants me to submit it the changes to back to him/freshrpms as well, I would be happy to do so. FWIW, I'm just a dumb civilian here who isn't steeped in the history of the various RPM packaging communities, so I just want to do the right thing. ;-) It would be nice if the RPM packaging community was as unified as the Debian packaging community, but I also understand that has its own difficulties as well.

- C