On 09/10/2014 03:51 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
If we're shipping binaries, we also have to ship the source code. Just
on general
principle, and many licenses require it.
Every build of package also include rebuilt src.rpm, which we also store
in resulting yum repo.
--
Miroslav Suchý
Red Hat S
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014, at 11:45 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> Does it mean the only way to build in copr would be to commit in git ?
> I build one-off for testing and although I do not put anything "fishy"
> in copr, I am not it would have any value to waste permanent space in
> git with most of the tests
Le 09/09/2014 09:02, Miroslav Suchý a écrit :
> On 09/08/2014 05:45 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> Does it mean the only way to build in copr would be to commit in git ?
> I'm not sure yet. But I would like to preserve it as option.
I also hope we can keep the option to build from a source RPM URL.
I b
On 09/08/2014 05:45 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
Does it mean the only way to build in copr would be to commit in git ?
I build one-off for testing and although I do not put anything "fishy"
in copr, I am not it would have any value to waste permanent space in
git with most of the tests I do.
I'm not
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 15:05 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 06:28 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > ok. Lets back up here before we start talking implementation...
> >
> > What would be in this dist-git?
>
> Everything what is going to be built in Copr.
Does it mean the only way to build in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 6 Sep 2014 17:22:32 +0200
drago01 wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Dennis Gilmore
> wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 17:34:57 +0200
> > Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
Hi
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 12:48 PM, drago01 wrote:
>
> Well the FPCA seem to talk about this if someone that didn't sign it
> sent you a patch all he/she has to do is to provide it under an
> "acceptable license".
>
Yes but we artificially make it seem like FPCA is a requirement even when
it i
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 11:22 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>
>> Huh? What makes one legally not eligible to contribute? Just not
>> signing the fpca? How is that different from someone that submits a
>> patch via bugzilla / mail / whatever?
>
Hi
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 11:22 AM, drago01 wrote:
> Huh? What makes one legally not eligible to contribute? Just not
> signing the fpca? How is that different from someone that submits a
> patch via bugzilla / mail / whatever?
> I don't think people check whether those patch submitters have si
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 17:34:57 +0200
> Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> we (the Copr team) would like to allow uploading of source RPM to
>> Copr. It seems that best way is to utilize dist-g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 17:34:57 +0200
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Hi,
> we (the Copr team) would like to allow uploading of source RPM to
> Copr. It seems that best way is to utilize dist-git [1]. Then Copr
> will fetch sources and spec file from dist-git a
On 09/04/2014 06:28 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
ok. Lets back up here before we start talking implementation...
What would be in this dist-git?
Everything what is going to be built in Copr.
Any legally allowed in Fedora code/projects?
Yes. See
https://fedorahosted.org/copr/wiki/UserDocs#WhatI
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 17:34:57 +0200
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Hi,
> we (the Copr team) would like to allow uploading of source RPM to
> Copr. It seems that best way is to utilize dist-git [1]. Then Copr
> will fetch sources and spec file from dist-git and build SRC.RPM the
> same as Koji does now. A
13 matches
Mail list logo
