From Fedora Project Wiki

No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
This exception was added to the guidelines when it was common practise to have many of the Fedora specific tools not available as a source release separately and the only way to get them was to extract it from the source rpm package. However this is not a sane development practise and hinders cross distribution adoption and participation. Therefore, it is much better to drop such exceptions and recommend a proper infrastructure instead.  
This exception was added to the guidelines when it was common practise to have many of the Fedora specific tools not available as a source release separately and the only way to get them was to extract it from the source rpm package. However this is not a sane development practise and hinders cross distribution adoption and participation. Therefore, it is much better to drop such exceptions and recommend a proper infrastructure instead.  


A while after system-config-printer was adopted by other distributions like Ubuntu and Mandriva, there was a specific request from another distribution that they prefer dealing with a tarball and proper SCM management rather than having to extract the source from the tarball. We did no have proper hosting facilities within Fedora and delayed this. It is high time we demonstrate good upstream project practises (tarball + patches in cvs is just not good enough). The fact that not all upstream projects do this yet is not a good excuse.
A while after system-config-printer was adopted by other distributions like Ubuntu and Mandriva, there was a specific request from another distribution that they prefer dealing with a tarball and proper SCM management rather than having to extract the source from the tarball. We did not have proper hosting facilities within Fedora and delayed this. It is high time we demonstrate good upstream project practises (tarball + patches in cvs is just not good enough). The fact that not all upstream projects do this yet is not a good excuse.


[[Category:Packaging guidelines drafts]]
[[Category:Packaging guidelines drafts]]

Revision as of 19:34, 31 July 2009

Note.png
Historically, we have had a exception for projects where upstream development is led by Fedora project itself. They could just contain the source within the srpm and add a comment indicating that. However this is not a acceptable practise anymore since it hinders adoption and participation from the free software community including other distributions. Use a proper project hosting infrastructure like http://fedorahosted.org instead.

Rationale

This exception was added to the guidelines when it was common practise to have many of the Fedora specific tools not available as a source release separately and the only way to get them was to extract it from the source rpm package. However this is not a sane development practise and hinders cross distribution adoption and participation. Therefore, it is much better to drop such exceptions and recommend a proper infrastructure instead.

A while after system-config-printer was adopted by other distributions like Ubuntu and Mandriva, there was a specific request from another distribution that they prefer dealing with a tarball and proper SCM management rather than having to extract the source from the tarball. We did not have proper hosting facilities within Fedora and delayed this. It is high time we demonstrate good upstream project practises (tarball + patches in cvs is just not good enough). The fact that not all upstream projects do this yet is not a good excuse.

Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Archive:No_more_exception_where_we_are_upstream(draft)&oldid=116730"