Re: upstream wants me to rename my package

2012-09-10 Thread Doug Ledford 
On 9/9/2012 2:03 AM, Gary Gatling wrote:
> Hey guys,
> 
> I decided to ask if he would be willing to add an epoc tag as Ken
> suggested or be willing to become a maintainer or co-maintainer. I think
> he just continues to insist that rpm work in a way its not designed...
> (Have two versions of the same software thing on a box)

Point him to the MPI packaging guidelines.  They are nothing more than
all the things that have to be done in order for more than one copy of
the same software to be installed at the same time and coexist
peacefully.  Unless you have a dire need for it, it's a royal pain in
the ass.  And have him read the openmpi spec file too, it really
exemplifies how ugly this stuff gets.

--

Doug Ledford 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: upstream wants me to rename my package

2012-09-09 Thread Matthew Miller 
On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 09:42:58PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Please note the warning on the top of this page: 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SoftwareCollections
> Except and until they are approved for use in Fedora, please do NOT
> setup your packages with SoftwareCollections. 

Right, but this sounds like exactly what the _upstream_ wants to do.


-- 
Matthew Miller 
Senior Systems Architect -- SEAS Computing
Harvard School of Engineering & Applied Sciences
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: upstream wants me to rename my package

2012-09-09 Thread Kevin Fenzi 
On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 18:32:17 -0400
Matthew Miller  wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 02:03:32AM -0400, Gary Gatling wrote:
> > packages will clobber theirs.  However, what I'm really trying to
> > achieve is the ability to install our package alongside the
> > distribution-supplied package.  The idea is that a user may be
> > using the
> 
> So, it happens that this is a problem with a solution! Or, at least a
> solution with a problem in development. Presenting: Software
> Collections:
> 
> http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/Software_Collections_Guide/sect-What_Are_Software_Collections.html
> 

Please note the warning on the top of this page: 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SoftwareCollections

Except and until they are approved for use in Fedora, please do NOT
setup your packages with SoftwareCollections. 

thanks, 

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: upstream wants me to rename my package

2012-09-09 Thread Matthew Miller 
On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 02:03:32AM -0400, Gary Gatling wrote:
> packages will clobber theirs.  However, what I'm really trying to
> achieve is the ability to install our package alongside the
> distribution-supplied package.  The idea is that a user may be using the

So, it happens that this is a problem with a solution! Or, at least a
solution with a problem in development. Presenting: Software Collections:

http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/Software_Collections_Guide/sect-What_Are_Software_Collections.html

-- 
Matthew Miller 
Senior Systems Architect -- SEAS Computing
Harvard School of Engineering & Applied Sciences
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: upstream wants me to rename my package

2012-09-09 Thread Mathieu Bridon 

On Sunday, September 09, 2012 02:03 PM, Gary Gatling wrote:

So a question would be do I need to jump through more hoops so that:

" ...a user may be using the
distribution-supplied version for day-to-day work, but they may need to
install a pre-release to test a new fix, or to temporarily use a
pre-release until a fix is deployed via YUM.  It would be nice for them
to be able to do that without uninstalling the distribution-supplied
version.  Also, the distribution-supplied version may support features
(such as OpenSSL) that we don't build into the official binaries." ?

So I guess another question is what is our official response?  I am
trying to follow Ken's suggestion but anything I say just makes him
more insistent and possibly hostile...

My suggestion is that we name the package "virtualgl" (all lowercase)
since thats still technically the name of the software. I think caps are
kind of stupid in a package name anyways? I'm not sure what to say about
"alternatives" but I'm not trying to piss them off either. :)

Thoughts?


Fedora usually tries to stay close to upstream. That also implies 
respecting upstream's desire for their software.


If upstream doesn't want VirtualGL to be distributed in Fedora, 
following the Fedora guidelines, then perhaps the simplest solution is 
to just not distribute the package in Fedora?


I mean, if upstream is being difficult now, it is possible that the 
communication will remain frustrating in the future, rendering you 
unable to fix bugs in the Fedora package in a timely fashion, leading to 
users being disappointed by the Fedora package and moving to the 
upstream-provided packages. So why bother?



--
Mathieu

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: upstream wants me to rename my package

2012-09-09 Thread Pierre-Yves Chibon 
On Sun, 2012-09-09 at 02:03 -0400, Gary Gatling wrote:
> 
> " ...a user may be using the
> distribution-supplied version for day-to-day work, but they may need
> to install a pre-release to test a new fix, or to temporarily use a
> pre-release until a fix is deployed via YUM.  It would be nice for
> them to be able to do that without uninstalling the
> distribution-supplied version.  Also, the distribution-supplied
> version may support features (such as OpenSSL) that we don't build
> into the official binaries." ?

I would say that his version removes the yum one, so someone can test
the bugfix and in case of problem yum downgrade/yum history undo...
That shouldn't be a big deal.

Pierre
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: upstream wants me to rename my package

2012-09-09 Thread Mattia Verga 
Renaming just the package doesn't solve problems of conflicting files. 
Libraries and binaries provided by the two packages will have the same 
name, so it's not possible to have both installed beacuse one conflicts 
with the other.


The idea of just "install a pre-release version without uninstalling the 
distribution-supplied version" seems odd to me.


Someone with more experience in rpms than me can correct my assumptions 
if I'm wrong.


Il 09/09/2012 08:03, Gary Gatling ha scritto:

Hey guys,

I decided to ask if he would be willing to add an epoc tag as Ken 
suggested or be willing to become a maintainer or co-maintainer. I 
think he just continues to insist that rpm work in a way its 
not designed... (Have two versions of the same software thing on a box)


Here is his response in full:

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 12:38 AM, DRC > wrote:

To be clear, I don't sell software.  The official VirtualGL RPMs are
provided for free on SourceForge, but I pay my rent through support,
professional services, and funded development of VirtualGL and other OSS
projects (libjpeg-turbo, TurboVNC, libvncserver, etc. etc.)  The ability
to do just-in-time distribution of binaries (via the VirtualGL
Pre-Releases page on VirtualGL.org) is part and parcel of these
professional services.  A customer reports a bug, and I can often turn
around a new build for them within hours.  These customers are typically
large installations-- sometimes hundreds of seats-- so when they get a
new RPM from me, they test it in isolation and then push it out to their
users via their own internal distribution mechanism.  They would not use
YUM, even if VirtualGL was provided via that mechanism.

The VirtualGL Project has been shipping RPMs for 8 years now, so I'm
understandably hesitant to change the name of our packages just to make
a downstream O/S distributor happy.  For consistency, I'd have to change
the name of all of the packages-- Windows, Mac, Debian, etc.  PITA.

The concern is not really that Fedora will overwrite our RPMs.  The
official VirtualGL RPMs use a build number based on the date (such as
20120908), so our RPMs will likely overwrite Fedora's, which use a build
number of 1, 2, etc.  Using a higher epoch number with our packages is
certainly easy enough to do as well, to really guarantee that our
packages will clobber theirs.  However, what I'm really trying to
achieve is the ability to install our package alongside the
distribution-supplied package.  The idea is that a user may be using the
distribution-supplied version for day-to-day work, but they may need to
install a pre-release to test a new fix, or to temporarily use a
pre-release until a fix is deployed via YUM.  It would be nice for them
to be able to do that without uninstalling the distribution-supplied
version.  Also, the distribution-supplied version may support features
(such as OpenSSL) that we don't build into the official binaries.

I'm willing to meet halfway on this-- to move all of the official
VirtualGL files into /opt/VirtualGL and to use alternatives to install
links in /usr/bin.  However, I'm not willing to change the name of the
package at this time, so if Fedora isn't willing to do that, either, or
if they aren't willing to play nice in /usr/bin, then a conflict is
inevitable.  If a conflict is inevitable, then there's no real point to
me putting forth any effort to re-organize things on my end.

I'm still willing to make minor changes to make things easier on you, as
long as they don't make things harder on me.  It would still be nice to
figure out how to pre-load the libraries from a non-system directory in
a generic way, for instance.

To answer your second question, no, I do not have time to become a
package maintainer.  Frankly, what's in it for me?  At the end of the
day, the only real benefit I would see from having VirtualGL distributed
by a major O/S is publicity, and the potential upside to that is not
worth the downside of completely re-engineering our packaging system.  I
also do not want to get into the business of supporting
distribution-specific VirtualGL releases.  I designed our official
packages to provide as uniform a layout as possible to make things
easier on me.  Trying to support several different distribution-specific
layouts makes things a lot harder for me.


So a question would be do I need to jump through more hoops so that:

" ...a user may be using the
distribution-supplied version for day-to-day work, but they may need to
install a pre-release to test a new fix, or to temporarily use a
pre-release until a fix is deployed via YUM.  It would be nice for them
to be able to do that without uninstalling the distribution-supplied
version.  Also, the distribution-supplied version may support features
(such as OpenSSL) that we don't build into the official binaries." ?

So I guess another question is what is our official response?  I am 
trying to follow Ken's suggestion but anything I say

Re: upstream wants me to rename my package

2012-09-08 Thread Gary Gatling 
Hey guys,

I decided to ask if he would be willing to add an epoc tag as Ken suggested
or be willing to become a maintainer or co-maintainer. I think he just
continues to insist that rpm work in a way its not designed... (Have two
versions of the same software thing on a box)

Here is his response in full:

On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 12:38 AM, DRC 
wrote:
To be clear, I don't sell software.  The official VirtualGL RPMs are
provided for free on SourceForge, but I pay my rent through support,
professional services, and funded development of VirtualGL and other OSS
projects (libjpeg-turbo, TurboVNC, libvncserver, etc. etc.)  The ability
to do just-in-time distribution of binaries (via the VirtualGL
Pre-Releases page on VirtualGL.org) is part and parcel of these
professional services.  A customer reports a bug, and I can often turn
around a new build for them within hours.  These customers are typically
large installations-- sometimes hundreds of seats-- so when they get a
new RPM from me, they test it in isolation and then push it out to their
users via their own internal distribution mechanism.  They would not use
YUM, even if VirtualGL was provided via that mechanism.

The VirtualGL Project has been shipping RPMs for 8 years now, so I'm
understandably hesitant to change the name of our packages just to make
a downstream O/S distributor happy.  For consistency, I'd have to change
the name of all of the packages-- Windows, Mac, Debian, etc.  PITA.

The concern is not really that Fedora will overwrite our RPMs.  The
official VirtualGL RPMs use a build number based on the date (such as
20120908), so our RPMs will likely overwrite Fedora's, which use a build
number of 1, 2, etc.  Using a higher epoch number with our packages is
certainly easy enough to do as well, to really guarantee that our
packages will clobber theirs.  However, what I'm really trying to
achieve is the ability to install our package alongside the
distribution-supplied package.  The idea is that a user may be using the
distribution-supplied version for day-to-day work, but they may need to
install a pre-release to test a new fix, or to temporarily use a
pre-release until a fix is deployed via YUM.  It would be nice for them
to be able to do that without uninstalling the distribution-supplied
version.  Also, the distribution-supplied version may support features
(such as OpenSSL) that we don't build into the official binaries.

I'm willing to meet halfway on this-- to move all of the official
VirtualGL files into /opt/VirtualGL and to use alternatives to install
links in /usr/bin.  However, I'm not willing to change the name of the
package at this time, so if Fedora isn't willing to do that, either, or
if they aren't willing to play nice in /usr/bin, then a conflict is
inevitable.  If a conflict is inevitable, then there's no real point to
me putting forth any effort to re-organize things on my end.

I'm still willing to make minor changes to make things easier on you, as
long as they don't make things harder on me.  It would still be nice to
figure out how to pre-load the libraries from a non-system directory in
a generic way, for instance.

To answer your second question, no, I do not have time to become a
package maintainer.  Frankly, what's in it for me?  At the end of the
day, the only real benefit I would see from having VirtualGL distributed
by a major O/S is publicity, and the potential upside to that is not
worth the downside of completely re-engineering our packaging system.  I
also do not want to get into the business of supporting
distribution-specific VirtualGL releases.  I designed our official
packages to provide as uniform a layout as possible to make things
easier on me.  Trying to support several different distribution-specific
layouts makes things a lot harder for me.


So a question would be do I need to jump through more hoops so that:

" ...a user may be using the
distribution-supplied version for day-to-day work, but they may need to
install a pre-release to test a new fix, or to temporarily use a
pre-release until a fix is deployed via YUM.  It would be nice for them
to be able to do that without uninstalling the distribution-supplied
version.  Also, the distribution-supplied version may support features
(such as OpenSSL) that we don't build into the official binaries." ?

So I guess another question is what is our official response?  I am trying
to follow Ken's suggestion but anything I say just makes him more insistent
and possibly hostile...

My suggestion is that we name the package "virtualgl" (all lowercase) since
thats still technically the name of the software. I think caps are kind of
stupid in a package name anyways? I'm not sure what to say about
"alternatives" but I'm not trying to piss them off either. :)

Thoughts?
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: upstream wants me to rename my package

2012-09-08 Thread Paul Wouters 

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012, Ken Dreyer wrote:


With VirtualGL, if his main concern is that Fedora's RPMs will
overwrite the ones that he sells, could he just bump the Epoch tag in
his copies?


This is exactly what I did with custom rpms for opendnssec that depended
on proprietary PKCS#11 drivers and some different dependancies. I set
the epoch to 42 and that's what they have in their private repo. It will
never conflict with their RHEL/EPEL repositories.

Paul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: upstream wants me to rename my package

2012-09-08 Thread Mattia Verga 
I don't see the reason for someone to install and use two versions of 
the same thing and I think that renaming the package other than project 
name is a bad idea...
Besides that, if the developer doesn't want that others redistribuite 
his program he can always change the license or become co-maintainer of 
the package in fedora repos.


Il 07/09/2012 22:54, Gary Gatling ha scritto:

Hello,

I am working on a package called VirtualGL: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834127


After contacting the upstream on their mailing list, they seem 
obsessed with being able to install their own rprms and my package 
together at the same time. This seems odd / bad to me since only one 
vglrun could be in the path. He keeps talking about using symlinks in 
/opt and so forth to to somehow make my package able to co-exists with 
his package downloadable at:


http://www.virtualgl.org/

He does want me to change the package name also. Is it too late for me 
to that after that package has been accepted into fedora?  Here is 
what he says about that:


In terms of naming, I would suggest naming your RPM something besides
VirtualGL.  If you are splitting it into multiple RPMs, then this is
easy.  Just ship RPMs named "VirtualGL-common", "VirtualGL-client",
"VirtualGL-utils", "VirtualGL-server", "VirtualGL-devel", etc., and none
of them will actually be named "VirtualGL".  Or maybe use
"VirtualGL-fedora" or some alternative (even lowercase "virtualgl",
perhaps.)


If a upstream project somehow objects to someone packaging their 
software should you just give up and tell people that the upstream 
would prefer you download their self created rpms or is it considered 
acceptable to go ahead and package their software over their objections?



He says at the end of his email:

"'I'm willing to help out in any way I can, within reason, but I will also
re-iterate that VirtualGL was never really designed to be integrated
into an O/S distribution."

Thanks for any thoughts you guys might have about this surprising 
reaction...





-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: upstream wants me to rename my package

2012-09-08 Thread Gianluca Sforna 
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Gary Gatling  wrote:
> If a upstream project somehow objects to someone packaging their software
> should you just give up and tell people that the upstream would prefer you
> download their self created rpms or is it considered acceptable to go ahead
> and package their software over their objections?
>
>
> He says at the end of his email:
>
> "'I'm willing to help out in any way I can, within reason, but I will also
> re-iterate that VirtualGL was never really designed to be integrated
> into an O/S distribution."
>
> Thanks for any thoughts you guys might have about this surprising
> reaction...

The classic 0.02:
Now, I don't really get the "not designed to be integrated in a
distro" part, but since he obviously wants to offer RPMs for his
project, maybe he could be interested in becoming the (co)maintainer
in Fedora? Being in the distro's official repo has several advantages
(exposure, easy installation, etc) that any upstream should be very
keen about.



-- 
Gianluca Sforna

http://morefedora.blogspot.com
http://identi.ca/giallu - http://twitter.com/giallu
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: upstream wants me to rename my package

2012-09-07 Thread Gary Gatling 
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 7:09 PM, Ken Dreyer  wrote:

>
> Well, there are occasions when upstream's priorities are somewhat
> antithetical to what we're doing in Fedora. And pissing off upstream
> is never a great idea :) I think the goal is tread carefully, walking
> the fine line of trying to change what we can upstream, attempting to
> accommodate upstream's stated priorities as much as possible, while
> still making our Fedora packaging job easier.
>

Understood. Do not want to piss them off.

>
> With VirtualGL, if his main concern is that Fedora's RPMs will
> overwrite the ones that he sells, could he just bump the Epoch tag in
> his copies?


I think he was mostly concerned about the users who already installed his
"Official"  rpm before he found out about the review request. (For however
long the packages have been there on his site for download)  I think the
epoch bump would work once he modified his package for any new downloads if
he agreed to do that. But it would not help the people who already
installed it.

I don't think he sells the rpms directly  but he has customers and said
something about like 200 hours of work being supported for some time period
by customers and also doing free (bonus) work on the project and not having
time to learn to set up a yum repo or anything:

"For starters, all of my paying customers are using RHEL, not Fedora, and
the second most popular platform among VGL users is Ubuntu." So he has
paying customers...

The first suggestion was for him to set up a yum repo and use
yum-priorities to prefer that repo over the fedora repos. But he did not
like that idea at all.

I could suggest an epoc version number if that if that is the best
/ proffered way to go. However,  I might wait a few days to reply to his
email. If he does not like that idea of an epoc version what do we offer
next?

I do think its strange to say "VirtualGL was never really designed to be
integrated  into an O/S distribution" when its in lots of Linux distros
already such as ubuntu, arch and gentoo AFAIK.

Thanks.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: upstream wants me to rename my package

2012-09-07 Thread Ken Dreyer 
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Gary Gatling  wrote:
> But like everything else he is talking about, I feel its not my problem. And
> I don't really care. Maybe thats evil/wrong of me?

Well, there are occasions when upstream's priorities are somewhat
antithetical to what we're doing in Fedora. And pissing off upstream
is never a great idea :) I think the goal is tread carefully, walking
the fine line of trying to change what we can upstream, attempting to
accommodate upstream's stated priorities as much as possible, while
still making our Fedora packaging job easier.

With VirtualGL, if his main concern is that Fedora's RPMs will
overwrite the ones that he sells, could he just bump the Epoch tag in
his copies?

- Ken
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: upstream wants me to rename my package

2012-09-07 Thread Gary Gatling 
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Dan Williams  wrote:
>
>
> That's not usually something Fedora does.  The package name takes the
> name of the upstream project, because the package *is* the delivery
> option for that software in Fedora.  We do not care that much about
> upstream RPMs that random projects may distribute, because they are
> often not tailored to the specifics of Fedora.  We as Fedora packagers
> are familiar with the requirements of Fedora, and if the upstream
> project really wants control over the Fedora package, then they should
> become Fedora packagers themselves.
>

I feel like maybe the name change is reasonable? Since he makes money
somehow off his rpms? And I wouldn't want his customers or whatever to have
their package clobbered by yum... (that is why I didn't push out into an
update in Bodhi yet in any branch)

But like everything else he is talking about, I feel its not my problem.
And I don't really care. Maybe thats evil/wrong of me?

Like, for example, If you want 2 packages to co-exist , then keep using
/opt (freaking non-standard) and also put your vglrun script in
/usr/local/bin/ so it "wins" and is first in the path and then their is no
rpm conflict (except maybe the docs? Need to think about it more maybe...)
but don't expect us to change our fedora packaging guidelines or our
package just because you believe in having static binaries, non system
headers, packages that do the same thing co-existing, etc. Rules are rules
for a reason. I know we wouldn't change these fundamentals but I also don't
think I should have to change anything other than the packages name at this
point. I told him to tell me if their were security updates, or critical
bugs and I would do likewise... Its all just weird to me his reaction.
Maybe others on this list have had similar reactions from developers of
open source software?

My opinion, at least.
>
> Dan
>

Thanks!
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: upstream wants me to rename my package

2012-09-07 Thread Dan Williams 
On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 16:54 -0400, Gary Gatling wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> 
> I am working on a package called
> VirtualGL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834127
> 
> 
> After contacting the upstream on their mailing list, they seem
> obsessed with being able to install their own rprms and my package
> together at the same time. This seems odd / bad to me since only one
> vglrun could be in the path. He keeps talking about using symlinks
> in /opt and so forth to to somehow make my package able to co-exists
> with his package downloadable at: 

That's not usually something Fedora does.  The package name takes the
name of the upstream project, because the package *is* the delivery
option for that software in Fedora.  We do not care that much about
upstream RPMs that random projects may distribute, because they are
often not tailored to the specifics of Fedora.  We as Fedora packagers
are familiar with the requirements of Fedora, and if the upstream
project really wants control over the Fedora package, then they should
become Fedora packagers themselves.

Yes, you can use the 'alternatives' functionality, but that's mostly
only been used by completely different, competing implementations of the
same program, like Java vs. OpenJDK.  It has not (nor, IMHO, should not)
be used to allow slightly different versions of the same project, which
isn't even forked (since you're just repackaging upstream code), to
coexist and be switched between.

My opinion, at least.

Dan

> 
> http://www.virtualgl.org/
> 
> 
> He does want me to change the package name also. Is it too late for me
> to that after that package has been accepted into fedora?  Here is
> what he says about that:
> 
> 
> In terms of naming, I would suggest naming your RPM something besides
> VirtualGL.  If you are splitting it into multiple RPMs, then this is
> easy.  Just ship RPMs named "VirtualGL-common", "VirtualGL-client",
> "VirtualGL-utils", "VirtualGL-server", "VirtualGL-devel", etc., and
> none
> of them will actually be named "VirtualGL".  Or maybe use
> "VirtualGL-fedora" or some alternative (even lowercase "virtualgl",
> perhaps.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a upstream project somehow objects to someone packaging their
> software should you just give up and tell people that the upstream
> would prefer you download their self created rpms or is it considered
> acceptable to go ahead and package their software over their
> objections?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He says at the end of his email:
> 
> 
> "'I'm willing to help out in any way I can, within reason, but I will
> also
> re-iterate that VirtualGL was never really designed to be integrated
> into an O/S distribution."
> 
> 
> Thanks for any thoughts you guys might have about this surprising
> reaction...


-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

upstream wants me to rename my package

2012-09-07 Thread Gary Gatling 
Hello,

I am working on a package called VirtualGL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834127

After contacting the upstream on their mailing list, they seem obsessed
with being able to install their own rprms and my package together at the
same time. This seems odd / bad to me since only one vglrun could be in the
path. He keeps talking about using symlinks in /opt and so forth to to
somehow make my package able to co-exists with his package downloadable at:

http://www.virtualgl.org/

He does want me to change the package name also. Is it too late for me to
that after that package has been accepted into fedora?  Here is what he
says about that:

In terms of naming, I would suggest naming your RPM something besides
VirtualGL.  If you are splitting it into multiple RPMs, then this is
easy.  Just ship RPMs named "VirtualGL-common", "VirtualGL-client",
"VirtualGL-utils", "VirtualGL-server", "VirtualGL-devel", etc., and none
of them will actually be named "VirtualGL".  Or maybe use
"VirtualGL-fedora" or some alternative (even lowercase "virtualgl",
perhaps.)


If a upstream project somehow objects to someone packaging their software
should you just give up and tell people that the upstream would prefer you
download their self created rpms or is it considered acceptable to go ahead
and package their software over their objections?


He says at the end of his email:

"'I'm willing to help out in any way I can, within reason, but I will also
re-iterate that VirtualGL was never really designed to be integrated
into an O/S distribution."

Thanks for any thoughts you guys might have about this surprising
reaction...
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel