https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686506
--- Comment #28 from Robert-André Mauchin <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Jason A. Donenfeld from comment #26) > There seems to be a lot of disconnect here. Essentially, Joe's been working > on WireGuard on Fedora/RHEL for a really long time and has been intimately > involved with packaging for the process. He knows enormous amounts about > upstream development. Meanwhile eager Fedora packagers have come along, > which is great and encouraging, and there's certainly an opportunity here. > But clearly the approach and the attitude is pretty out of sync with the > expectations of both our tens of thousands of users and of upstream. And the > current direction is not sounding very appealing from a packaging direction > as well. > > I'd encourage this approach: close this bug, get Joe started on official > Fedora packaging induction, and when things are ready to go, Joe will open a > new bug report with the package he intends to add. At that time if the OP's > of this bug are interested in helping him out with the package, Joe can use > his judgement. No worry, I'll see to guide Joe Doss through the sponsorship process as soon as I have the time. He'll be comaintainer once the package is reviewed. Congrats on patch v9, I hope it will make it into 5.2. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
