On Sunday 02 March 2003 00:47, Guillaume Rousse wrote: > Le Samedi 1 Mars 2003 23:28, Steffen Barszus a �crit : > > > IMHO, and just contribute to global lack of coherency. Club people > > > should focus on porting, and forward new package request to > > > contributers, so as to keep one only package reference list, one only > > > package policy, and one only introduction procedure. > > > > So you mean: > > - requested packages have to go to cooker first and then rebuild for club > > Yes >
Then this have to be changed. And I would be against it. Or it should be defined who is "we". Or the packages of club have to be announced on CHRPM. If a "volunteer" would package something for club he would be forced to cooker then. http://www.mandrakeclub.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=FAQ&file=index&myfaq=yes&id_cat=4&categories=Volunteers "� What is our relation to cooker? .... 2. In case the application doesn't exist in cooker (or cooker/contributions) yet, please send an email to the cooker mailing list saying "I'll build this application for MandrakeClub", and then go ahead and build it. Once you are done we will take the package and add it to cooker/contributions too. ...." Note: To find out who's the maintainer of an RPM, please look at the changelog (rpm -q --changelog) of the RPM you are interested in. The name (and email) which appears in recent changelog entries is the one you have been looking for." > > - packages that don't appear to be possible for cooker shouldn't be > > uploaded to club (wether it is requested or not) > > I forgot the club had no license restriction. However, i'm still convinced > those package should instead go in PLF, so as to keep a unique and > non-ambiguous introduction point. > But plf relies on main/contrib, doesn't it ? Club is only one place, what do you fear ? src.rpm are available, why complicate it ? It would be nice to have club-rpm in cooker, but is it a must ? > I have no problems with the club mirroring and aggregating content from > different location, so as to sell this service to its users. What i > disagree is packages being introduced everywhere, making impossible to > track them and to propagate them to maximum extent in a rationale way. Why is club everywhere ? Maybe the proccess is unclear or the communication failed, but forcing volunteers to cooker and state it in an other way is wrong. Just my 2 � -- Regards Steffen ____________________ counter.li.org : #296567. machine: 181800 vdr-box : 87 ____________________ Please dont CC me, since if I have replied I'll watch the tread. Both mails will be filtered to the ML-folder. Thanks
