Hello, I am a longtime Red Hat Linux / RHEL sysadmin and I am interested in participating in EPEL. After reading a lot of information on the fedoraproject.org website I created a package for alpine, the Apache-licensed successor to pine:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=249365
However, now I think perhaps I was supposed to get a sponsor before submitting a package.
Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
Hello, I am a longtime Red Hat Linux / RHEL sysadmin and I am interested in participating in EPEL. After reading a lot of information on the fedoraproject.org website I created a package for alpine, the Apache-licensed successor to pine:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=249365
However, now I think perhaps I was supposed to get a sponsor before submitting a package.
Actually, creating a package and having it reviewed and accepted by a sponsor is one of the ways you *get* sponsored. :)
Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
Hello, I am a longtime Red Hat Linux / RHEL sysadmin and I am interested in participating in EPEL. After reading a lot of information on the fedoraproject.org website I created a package for alpine, the Apache-licensed successor to pine:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=249365
However, now I think perhaps I was supposed to get a sponsor before submitting a package.
Welcome to EPEL.
You are supposed to submit a package and potentially review others waiting on queue to demonstrate knowledge on packaging for getting sponsored. If this isn't clear in the guidelines let me know and I will fix it.
Rahul
On 7/24/07, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
However, now I think perhaps I was supposed to get a sponsor before submitting a package.
You are supposed to submit a package and potentially review others waiting on queue to demonstrate knowledge on packaging for getting sponsored. If this isn't clear in the guidelines let me know and I will fix it.
OK, the "Getting Sponsored" section confused me: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored?highligh... If I re-read it carefully, it accurately describes the process, but some statements could be easily misread, such as "A sponsor will assist you with some aspects of packaging".
Additionally, I began at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join (or actually at EPEL/SIG but that makes it clear you need to join Fedora first) which has a wonderful ordered list of steps:
# Read the Guidelines # Create a Bugzilla Account # Join the important Mailing Lists # Read Other Submissions # Make a Package # Upload Your Package # Create Your Review Request # Watch for Feedback # Get a Fedora Account # Get Sponsored
However, PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored indicates that you should do a few package reviews first since "sponsors will want to see what reviews you have done". Also the sentence in the review section "the more you indicate that you understand, the better your chances of being sponsored" makes it sound like someone might sponsor you from reading your reviews. (BTW, that page also lists FE-REVIEW twice.)
Thanks, Joshua
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 10:29:15AM -0700, Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
OK, the "Getting Sponsored" section confused me: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored?highligh... If I re-read it carefully, it accurately describes the process, but some statements could be easily misread, such as "A sponsor will assist you with some aspects of packaging".
Additionally, I began at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join (or actually at EPEL/SIG but that makes it clear you need to join Fedora first) which has a wonderful ordered list of steps:
# Read the Guidelines # Create a Bugzilla Account # Join the important Mailing Lists # Read Other Submissions # Make a Package # Upload Your Package # Create Your Review Request # Watch for Feedback # Get a Fedora Account # Get Sponsored
However, PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored indicates that you should do a few package reviews first since "sponsors will want to see what reviews you have done". Also the sentence in the review section "the more you indicate that you understand, the better your chances of being sponsored" makes it sound like someone might sponsor you from reading your reviews. (BTW, that page also lists FE-REVIEW twice.)
Heh, yes... the steps are way too complex IMO. I believe they are working on FAS2 to at least make the getting an account part a little more streamlined...
I recently submitted a package and went through the same process you are. I'd say get going with your Bugzilla account, and even submit your review request and at least get that ball rolling.
You can get your FAS account set up, do a "pre-review" or someone else's package and then find someone to review your package and sponsor you (often the same person).
I just ended up getting the ball rolling on my review and doing the other steps a little out of order :)
Ray
On 7/24/07, Joshua Daniel Franklin jdf.lists@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, I am a longtime Red Hat Linux / RHEL sysadmin and I am interested in participating in EPEL. After reading a lot of information on the fedoraproject.org website I created a package for alpine, the Apache-licensed successor to pine:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=249365
However, now I think perhaps I was supposed to get a sponsor before submitting a package.
Cool. You saved me from finishing up my package for review tomorrow.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Cool. You saved me from finishing up my package for review tomorrow.
By all means, jump in on the review and voice any thoughts you have. I had an Alpine package in okay-ish shape (just needed some time to polish it up before review), as well. While I can't sponsor Joshua, I can give some feedback to try and make the package as good as possible. (Conversely, he got some things right that I'll readily acknowledge I'd done wrong in mine. Like I said in the review bug, yay for open source collaboration.) Hopefully a sponsor will come along, too. :-)
Jima
On 7/24/07, Joshua Daniel Franklin jdf.lists@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, I am a longtime Red Hat Linux / RHEL sysadmin and I am interested in participating in EPEL. After reading a lot of information on the fedoraproject.org website I created a package for alpine, the Apache-licensed successor to pine:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=249365
However, now I think perhaps I was supposed to get a sponsor before submitting a package.
By the way, do you know if this version of alpine has their webclient included in it (I have a much older tarball)? I am wanting to look at that... and if it does, I would suspect you would want to seperate that out as a sub-package).
On 7/25/07, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
By the way, do you know if this version of alpine has their webclient included in it (I have a much older tarball)? I am wanting to look at that... and if it does, I would suspect you would want to seperate that out as a sub-package).
The tarball does, but I didn't build or configure it. I am UW staff so I am sometimes forced to use "WebPine" and it's OK if you want a CGI frontend slapped onto pine, but isn't very impressive compared to virtually any other web-based email system.
On 7/25/07, Joshua Daniel Franklin jdf.lists@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/25/07, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
By the way, do you know if this version of alpine has their webclient included in it (I have a much older tarball)? I am wanting to look at that... and if it does, I would suspect you would want to seperate that out as a sub-package).
The tarball does, but I didn't build or configure it. I am UW staff so I am sometimes forced to use "WebPine" and it's OK if you want a CGI frontend slapped onto pine, but isn't very impressive compared to virtually any other web-based email system.
Ah ok. We have some webstuff that makes pine look like a godsend... and reading the webpages it made the webpine sound better than Squirrelmail. Will just avoid it then.
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Jarod Wilson -
Jima -
Joshua Daniel Franklin -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ray Van Dolson -
Stephen John Smoogen