Re: Hopefully a new member of the team
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:42 PM, Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 19 November 2008 10:39:40 am Rex Dieter wrote: > > Dejan Lekic wrote: > > > Rex, I think you do not understand what I am saying ... I am willing to > > > develop/maintain packages inside ONE repository (RPMForge). I am not > > > saying to dump them here and leave. I am trying to explain why I cannot > > > do this in two separate projects (Fedora main repo and RPMFusion repo) > - > > > I have no time for both! > > > I have never said I am not going to maintain packages here (if they are > > > accepted, naturally) > > > > OK, my interpretations then, my apologies. > > > > But, the suggestions here have also never said to maintain anything in 2 > > repos. Fedora really is the ideal first place for all this... unless > > you had something else in mind (did I forget?) that is clearly > > rpmfusion-only territory. > > > > -- Rex > > Yes, if you (Dejan Lekic) could only submit packages to one repository, > we'd > prefer it to be Fedora, not RPM Fusion. > > -- > Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Conrad, that is what I needed to know. Thanks. -- Dejan Lekic http://dejan.lekic.org
Re: Hopefully a new member of the team
On Wednesday 19 November 2008 10:39:40 am Rex Dieter wrote: > Dejan Lekic wrote: > > Rex, I think you do not understand what I am saying ... I am willing to > > develop/maintain packages inside ONE repository (RPMForge). I am not > > saying to dump them here and leave. I am trying to explain why I cannot > > do this in two separate projects (Fedora main repo and RPMFusion repo) - > > I have no time for both! > > I have never said I am not going to maintain packages here (if they are > > accepted, naturally) > > OK, my interpretations then, my apologies. > > But, the suggestions here have also never said to maintain anything in 2 > repos. Fedora really is the ideal first place for all this... unless > you had something else in mind (did I forget?) that is clearly > rpmfusion-only territory. > > -- Rex Yes, if you (Dejan Lekic) could only submit packages to one repository, we'd prefer it to be Fedora, not RPM Fusion. -- Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Hopefully a new member of the team
Dejan Lekic wrote: Rex, I think you do not understand what I am saying ... I am willing to develop/maintain packages inside ONE repository (RPMForge). I am not saying to dump them here and leave. I am trying to explain why I cannot do this in two separate projects (Fedora main repo and RPMFusion repo) - I have no time for both! I have never said I am not going to maintain packages here (if they are accepted, naturally) OK, my interpretations then, my apologies. But, the suggestions here have also never said to maintain anything in 2 repos. Fedora really is the ideal first place for all this... unless you had something else in mind (did I forget?) that is clearly rpmfusion-only territory. -- Rex
Re: Hopefully a new member of the team
On Wednesday 19 November 2008 10:32:48 am Dejan Lekic wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Rex Dieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dejan Lekic wrote: > > > > OK, I am going to put packages and SPEC files somewhere on the web, and > > > >> add a new GIT repository (just SPEC files) and give you information > >> where those are and how to access them. After someone reviews them (if > >> actually RPMFusion guys want to do it) and check whether they can go > >> into RPMFusion repository or not, I expect a feedback together with a > >> simple, > >> straightforward answer - YES/NO - whether my packages will go into > >> RPMFusion or not. > > > > Seems to me that your perceptions may be off (or simply interpretation of > > your statements), but... to clarify: Neither fedora or rpmfusion is a > > dumping ground for packages. > > > > Without someone to do the work and drive/maintain these (apparently != > > you), the answer should be obvious: NO. > > > > Unless, of course, someone else steps forward, to continue the work you > > started. > > > > -- Rex > > Rex, I think you do not understand what I am saying ... I am willing to > develop/maintain packages inside ONE repository (RPMForge). I am not saying > to dump them here and leave. I am trying to explain why I cannot do this in > two separate projects (Fedora main repo and RPMFusion repo) - I have no > time for both! > I have never said I am not going to maintain packages here (if they are > accepted, naturally) Sorry, the whole existence of RPM Fusion revolves around it's relation to Fedora. We will reject packages that should be in Fedora. However, if you're willing to answer questions when problems arise, maybe someone would be willing to be a stand-in maintainer in Fedora once you've created packages? I don't see how having to have two bugzilla accounts is any more work than one, but if you package stuff that is useful and not in Fedora I don't see why someone else can't submit it for review and maintain it. Regards, -- Conrad Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Hopefully a new member of the team
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Rex Dieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dejan Lekic wrote: > > OK, I am going to put packages and SPEC files somewhere on the web, and >> add a new GIT repository (just SPEC files) and give you information where >> those are and how to access them. After someone reviews them (if actually >> RPMFusion guys want to do it) and check whether they can go into RPMFusion >> repository or not, I expect a feedback together with a simple, >> straightforward answer - YES/NO - whether my packages will go into RPMFusion >> or not. >> > > Seems to me that your perceptions may be off (or simply interpretation of > your statements), but... to clarify: Neither fedora or rpmfusion is a > dumping ground for packages. > > Without someone to do the work and drive/maintain these (apparently != > you), the answer should be obvious: NO. > > Unless, of course, someone else steps forward, to continue the work you > started. > > -- Rex > Rex, I think you do not understand what I am saying ... I am willing to develop/maintain packages inside ONE repository (RPMForge). I am not saying to dump them here and leave. I am trying to explain why I cannot do this in two separate projects (Fedora main repo and RPMFusion repo) - I have no time for both! I have never said I am not going to maintain packages here (if they are accepted, naturally) -- Dejan Lekic http://dejan.lekic.org
Re: Hopefully a new member of the team
Dejan Lekic wrote: OK, I am going to put packages and SPEC files somewhere on the web, and add a new GIT repository (just SPEC files) and give you information where those are and how to access them. After someone reviews them (if actually RPMFusion guys want to do it) and check whether they can go into RPMFusion repository or not, I expect a feedback together with a simple, straightforward answer - YES/NO - whether my packages will go into RPMFusion or not. Seems to me that your perceptions may be off (or simply interpretation of your statements), but... to clarify: Neither fedora or rpmfusion is a dumping ground for packages. Without someone to do the work and drive/maintain these (apparently != you), the answer should be obvious: NO. Unless, of course, someone else steps forward, to continue the work you started. -- Rex
Re: Hopefully a new member of the team
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Dejan Lekic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, 19 November 2008 at 01:30, Dejan Lekic wrote: >> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > On Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 16:12, Dejan Lekic wrote: >> > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Peter Lemenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > > > wrote: >> [...] >> > > > > Why you decided to push rpms into RPMFusion instead of >> Fedora/EPEL? >> > > > >> > > > frankly I did not think they would go into the main repository, at >> least >> > > > not yet. >> > > >> > > Why not? Are there some patent or other legal issues involved? You can >> > > always ask on fedora-legal-list to verify. >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > R. >> > > >> > > PS. Please do not top-reply. >> > >> > Well, I prefer using newsgroups instead, and this kind of reply is not >> my >> > cup of tea to be honest, but OK, I wll reply at the bottom. :) >> >> That's a step forward. Now you only need to learn not to mess up quoting >> and trim signatures and irrelevant parts of previous messages and you'll >> be all set. >> >> > No, there is not a single issue here, it is just me not willing to spend >> > time reading TWO mailing lists, TWO bugzillas, TWO repositories, etc. I >> > would much rather prefer working on one place (I hope so) - RPMForge. >> >> RPMForge is something different from RPMFusion, so I'm not sure what two >> mailing lists, bugzillas and repositories you are talking about. >> >> > If someone wish later to put these RPMs into Fedora, I will not mind, >> > but that person will have to maintain it. >> >> Well, as has been said in this thread: we're not an alternative to Fedora, >> we only complement it. If something can go into Fedora, we don't carry it. >> In fact, we've successfully managed to get several packages previously in >> RPMFusion into Fedora after legal issues were resolved. >> >> Regards, >> R. >> >> -- >> Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann >> RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu >> "Faith manages." >>-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" >> > > It was a mistake, i was thinking about RPMFusion, come on, isn't that so > obvious? :) > > > -- > Dejan Lekic > http://dejan.lekic.org > OK, I am going to put packages and SPEC files somewhere on the web, and add a new GIT repository (just SPEC files) and give you information where those are and how to access them. After someone reviews them (if actually RPMFusion guys want to do it) and check whether they can go into RPMFusion repository or not, I expect a feedback together with a simple, straightforward answer - YES/NO - whether my packages will go into RPMFusion or not. Do not get me wrong, but I do not want to bother with politics, and I will also be fine with negative answer as well. If you guys think these packages should go into Fedora's main repository it is okay, but I am not going to do it. - I have tried to explain my (IMHO valid) reasons for not willing to work with two projects at the same time. Please understand, these packages are not the only ones I am going to work on, there will be others, which I am _sure_ will not go into Fedora, because of legal issues. Eternal Lands packages I have here are one example of such packages. I did not want to talk about some more packages I am willing to work on until I successfully do my first task (Portable.NET), become a member of the project, and then progress to the stage when I can contribute more by adding some good-quality stuff into RPMForge. I have a whole bunch of D (programming language) related packages (dsss, tango - an alternative D runtime library, ddl, dog, dglut, dmd (potential legal issues here as compiler backend is not open-source), ldc - the third D compiler, even the descent - eclipse plugin, and few others, i do not remember them all :) To some of you it is not painful to monitor two repositories (which include bugzillas, mailing lists, emails from various people, cvs, ...), to me it certainly is, so please try to understand me instead of asking questions why this, why that... :) Kind regards -- Dejan Lekic http://dejan.lekic.org
Re: Hopefully a new member of the team
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday, 19 November 2008 at 01:30, Dejan Lekic wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 16:12, Dejan Lekic wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Peter Lemenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > [...] > > > > > Why you decided to push rpms into RPMFusion instead of Fedora/EPEL? > > > > > > > > frankly I did not think they would go into the main repository, at > least > > > > not yet. > > > > > > Why not? Are there some patent or other legal issues involved? You can > > > always ask on fedora-legal-list to verify. > > > > > > Regards, > > > R. > > > > > > PS. Please do not top-reply. > > > > Well, I prefer using newsgroups instead, and this kind of reply is not my > > cup of tea to be honest, but OK, I wll reply at the bottom. :) > > That's a step forward. Now you only need to learn not to mess up quoting > and trim signatures and irrelevant parts of previous messages and you'll > be all set. > > > No, there is not a single issue here, it is just me not willing to spend > > time reading TWO mailing lists, TWO bugzillas, TWO repositories, etc. I > > would much rather prefer working on one place (I hope so) - RPMForge. > > RPMForge is something different from RPMFusion, so I'm not sure what two > mailing lists, bugzillas and repositories you are talking about. > > > If someone wish later to put these RPMs into Fedora, I will not mind, > > but that person will have to maintain it. > > Well, as has been said in this thread: we're not an alternative to Fedora, > we only complement it. If something can go into Fedora, we don't carry it. > In fact, we've successfully managed to get several packages previously in > RPMFusion into Fedora after legal issues were resolved. > > Regards, > R. > > -- > Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann > RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu > "Faith manages." >-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" > It was a mistake, i was thinking about RPMFusion, come on, isn't that so obvious? :) -- Dejan Lekic http://dejan.lekic.org
Re: Hopefully a new member of the team
On Wednesday, 19 November 2008 at 01:30, Dejan Lekic wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 16:12, Dejan Lekic wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Peter Lemenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: [...] > > > > Why you decided to push rpms into RPMFusion instead of Fedora/EPEL? > > > > > > frankly I did not think they would go into the main repository, at least > > > not yet. > > > > Why not? Are there some patent or other legal issues involved? You can > > always ask on fedora-legal-list to verify. > > > > Regards, > > R. > > > > PS. Please do not top-reply. > > Well, I prefer using newsgroups instead, and this kind of reply is not my > cup of tea to be honest, but OK, I wll reply at the bottom. :) That's a step forward. Now you only need to learn not to mess up quoting and trim signatures and irrelevant parts of previous messages and you'll be all set. > No, there is not a single issue here, it is just me not willing to spend > time reading TWO mailing lists, TWO bugzillas, TWO repositories, etc. I > would much rather prefer working on one place (I hope so) - RPMForge. RPMForge is something different from RPMFusion, so I'm not sure what two mailing lists, bugzillas and repositories you are talking about. > If someone wish later to put these RPMs into Fedora, I will not mind, > but that person will have to maintain it. Well, as has been said in this thread: we're not an alternative to Fedora, we only complement it. If something can go into Fedora, we don't carry it. In fact, we've successfully managed to get several packages previously in RPMFusion into Fedora after legal issues were resolved. Regards, R. -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
Re: Hopefully a new member of the team
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 16:12, Dejan Lekic wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Peter Lemenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > 2008/11/18 Dejan Lekic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > I am willing to maintain Portable.NET (or so-called the "dotGNU" > project) > > > > packages. Portable.NET is an open-source, (L)GPL, implementation of > the > > > .NET > > > > 2.0 . I use my dotGNU RPMs quiet often and so far I haven't seen any > > > problem > > > > with them. I maintain contact with other users of my RPMs via > dotGNU's > > > > official IRC channel ( irc://irc.freenet.org/dotGNU ) and nobody > > > complained > > > > so far. > > > > > > > > I have some more RPMs that would be very interesting to be in > rpmfusion, > > > > but, since I am new here, I thought it would be the best to begin > with > > > > something. :) > > > > > > > > > Why you decided to push rpms into RPMFusion instead of Fedora/EPEL? > > > > frankly I did not think they would go into the main repository, at least > not > > yet. > > Why not? Are there some patent or other legal issues involved? You can > always ask on fedora-legal-list to verify. > > Regards, > R. > > PS. Please do not top-reply. > > -- > Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann > RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu > "Faith manages." >-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" > Well, I prefer using newsgroups instead, and this kind of reply is not my cup of tea to be honest, but OK, I wll reply at the bottom. :) No, there is not a single issue here, it is just me not willing to spend time reading TWO mailing lists, TWO bugzillas, TWO repositories, etc. I would much rather prefer working on one place (I hope so) - RPMForge. If someone wish later to put these RPMs into Fedora, I will not mind, but that person will have to maintain it. -- Dejan Lekic http://dejan.lekic.org
Re: Hopefully a new member of the team
Dejan Lekic wrote: Hello Peter, frankly I did not think they would go into the main repository, at least not yet. If Fedora guys later on decide to put it there, I would not mind, naturally. :) I like the RPMFusion idea as I used all those repositories earlier, and I want to be part of it. Afaik, there is no problem with portable.net going into the Fedora repository. RPMFusion has a policy of letting software be in the primary Fedora repository unless it has to be excluded for legal reasons. So you are better off proposing the packages there. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join If you do have legal concerns, ask in fedora-legal list http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list Rahul
Re: Hopefully a new member of the team
Dejan Lekic wrote: Hello everybody, my name is Dejan Lekic and I am, among other things a core developer of the FLTK project (http://www.fltk.org). ... I have some more RPMs that would be very interesting to be in rpmfusion, but, since I am new here, I thought it would be the best to begin with something. :) Welcome. I see you mentioned fltk, interested in helping (co)maintain it in Fedora? If so, feel free to contact me offlist. :) -- Rex
Hopefully a new member of the team
Hello everybody, my name is Dejan Lekic and I am, among other things a core developer of the FLTK project (http://www.fltk.org). I am a 33 years old software engineer / system developer from Sweden/Serbia (born in Serbia). At the moment I am pursuing my second degree, this time in Computer Science/Management (joint one). I am willing to maintain Portable.NET (or so-called the "dotGNU" project) packages. Portable.NET is an open-source, (L)GPL, implementation of the .NET 2.0 . I use my dotGNU RPMs quiet often and so far I haven't seen any problem with them. I maintain contact with other users of my RPMs via dotGNU's official IRC channel ( irc://irc.freenet.org/dotGNU ) and nobody complained so far. I have some more RPMs that would be very interesting to be in rpmfusion, but, since I am new here, I thought it would be the best to begin with something. :) This said, it is not difficult to understand that I need a menthor (if I understand that is rpmfusion's policy). So if someone wishes to menthor my first RPMs I am more than pleased to get in contact with that person. I will put RPMs somewhere tonight for you to analyse. PS. do we have an IRC channel perhaps? If not, I recommend making one on either OFTC ( http://www.oftc.net ) or FreeNode, so we can have some "direct" communication as well. Kind regards -- Dejan Lekic http://dejan.lekic.org
Re: Hopefully a new member of the team
On Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 16:12, Dejan Lekic wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Peter Lemenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2008/11/18 Dejan Lekic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > I am willing to maintain Portable.NET (or so-called the "dotGNU" project) > > > packages. Portable.NET is an open-source, (L)GPL, implementation of the > > .NET > > > 2.0 . I use my dotGNU RPMs quiet often and so far I haven't seen any > > problem > > > with them. I maintain contact with other users of my RPMs via dotGNU's > > > official IRC channel ( irc://irc.freenet.org/dotGNU ) and nobody > > complained > > > so far. > > > > > > I have some more RPMs that would be very interesting to be in rpmfusion, > > > but, since I am new here, I thought it would be the best to begin with > > > something. :) > > > > > > Why you decided to push rpms into RPMFusion instead of Fedora/EPEL? > > frankly I did not think they would go into the main repository, at least not > yet. Why not? Are there some patent or other legal issues involved? You can always ask on fedora-legal-list to verify. Regards, R. PS. Please do not top-reply. -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
Re: Hopefully a new member of the team
Hello Peter, frankly I did not think they would go into the main repository, at least not yet. If Fedora guys later on decide to put it there, I would not mind, naturally. :) I like the RPMFusion idea as I used all those repositories earlier, and I want to be part of it. Kind regards On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Peter Lemenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Dejan! > > 2008/11/18 Dejan Lekic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I am willing to maintain Portable.NET (or so-called the "dotGNU" project) > > packages. Portable.NET is an open-source, (L)GPL, implementation of the > .NET > > 2.0 . I use my dotGNU RPMs quiet often and so far I haven't seen any > problem > > with them. I maintain contact with other users of my RPMs via dotGNU's > > official IRC channel ( irc://irc.freenet.org/dotGNU ) and nobody > complained > > so far. > > > > I have some more RPMs that would be very interesting to be in rpmfusion, > > but, since I am new here, I thought it would be the best to begin with > > something. :) > > > Why you decided to push rpms into RPMFusion instead of Fedora/EPEL? > > -- > With best regards! > -- Dejan Lekic http://dejan.lekic.org
Re: Hopefully a new member of the team
Hi, > I am willing to maintain Portable.NET (or so-called the > "dotGNU" project) packages. Portable.NET is an open-source, > (L)GPL, implementation of the .NET 2.0 . probably I am missing something but ... why this cannot be in Fedora? > I will put RPMs somewhere tonight for you to analyse. Bugzilla is the place (to put the links and to review) http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors#head-0df093adde5a77a5e0569b2460ff49d078007ae3 K. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Hopefully a new member of the team
Hi, On Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 16:00, Dejan Lekic wrote: [...] > I am willing to maintain Portable.NET (or so-called the "dotGNU" project) > packages. Portable.NET is an open-source, (L)GPL, implementation of the .NET > 2.0 . I use my dotGNU RPMs quiet often and so far I haven't seen any problem > with them. I maintain contact with other users of my RPMs via dotGNU's > official IRC channel ( irc://irc.freenet.org/dotGNU ) and nobody complained > so far. How's that different from Mono 2.0? > I have some more RPMs that would be very interesting to be in rpmfusion, > but, since I am new here, I thought it would be the best to begin with > something. :) > > This said, it is not difficult to understand that I need a menthor (if I > understand that is rpmfusion's policy). So if someone wishes to menthor my > first RPMs I am more than pleased to get in contact with that person. I will > put RPMs somewhere tonight for you to analyse. We follow Fedora's policies and rules with few exceptions. See: http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors > PS. do we have an IRC channel perhaps? We do. It's #rpmfusion on FreeNode. Regards, R. -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
Re: Hopefully a new member of the team
Hello Dejan! 2008/11/18 Dejan Lekic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I am willing to maintain Portable.NET (or so-called the "dotGNU" project) > packages. Portable.NET is an open-source, (L)GPL, implementation of the .NET > 2.0 . I use my dotGNU RPMs quiet often and so far I haven't seen any problem > with them. I maintain contact with other users of my RPMs via dotGNU's > official IRC channel ( irc://irc.freenet.org/dotGNU ) and nobody complained > so far. > > I have some more RPMs that would be very interesting to be in rpmfusion, > but, since I am new here, I thought it would be the best to begin with > something. :) Why you decided to push rpms into RPMFusion instead of Fedora/EPEL? -- With best regards!
