On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 06:37:00PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > I was under the impression that everything in Fedora was MIT licensed
> > unless otherwise specified as per:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Licenses/LicenseAgreement
> > Is that incorrect?
> That's enforced through the FPCA.
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Adam Miller
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>>> (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git)
>>
>> I know Richard Fontana has expressed some intere
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>> (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git)
>
> I know Richard Fontana has expressed some interest in reducing the need
> for FPCA. Maybe this is an opportun
On Sun, 2017-06-04 at 08:50 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> Do you think we could change this to check:
> - has the user rights on that particular package?
> - is the user a member of the packager group?
I believe it does both of these currently.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally
On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 12:36:28PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> El dom, 04-06-2017 a las 08:52 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon escribió:
> > On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 01:31:50PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote:
> > >On 3 Jun 2017 8:33 am, "Pierre-Yves Chibon" > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >I think to aband
El dom, 04-06-2017 a las 08:52 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon escribió:
> On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 01:31:50PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote:
> >On 3 Jun 2017 8:33 am, "Pierre-Yves Chibon" > > wrote:
> >
> >I think to abandon the packager group for non-scratch builds
> > would be a
> >mistake.
El sáb, 03-06-2017 a las 09:32 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon escribió:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 08:52:22PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > > With the deprecation of pkgdb2, pagure will make it even easier
> > > to
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> El lun, 05-06-2017 a las 07:42 -0400, Neal Gompa escribió:
>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:39 AM, wrote:
>> > Spec files are licensed under mit license the same as fedora as a
>> > whole.
>> >
>>
>> Not always. Most of the time, they are, yes.
El lun, 05-06-2017 a las 07:42 -0400, Neal Gompa escribió:
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:39 AM, wrote:
> > Spec files are licensed under mit license the same as fedora as a
> > whole.
> >
>
> Not always. Most of the time, they are, yes. But if someone chose a
> Free Software license other than tha
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 11:35:46PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 07:24:36PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:42:20PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > > On 04/06/17 14:22, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Sorry to push on this some mo
There is also groups in fas for alternate architectures. On top of CVS admin
and proven packager, that all some how have to be tied into the ACLS. Proven
packager give you access to everything except for the Mozilla packages and the
others give access to everything.
Dennis
On 2 June 2017 2:42
On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:39 AM, wrote:
> Spec files are licensed under mit license the same as fedora as a whole.
>
Not always. Most of the time, they are, yes. But if someone chose a
Free Software license other than that or if the spec file was from the
upstream project, it's usually under diff
Spec files are licensed under mit license the same as fedora as a whole.
Dennis
On 2 June 2017 3:07:15 pm GMT-05:00, Matthew Miller
wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>> (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git)
>
>I know Richard Fontana
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 07:24:36PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:42:20PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > On 04/06/17 14:22, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:10:13PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > > > On 04/06/17 13:20, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:42:20PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 04/06/17 14:22, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:10:13PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > > On 04/06/17 13:20, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:15:19PM +0200, Michal Schorm wrote:
> > >
On 04/06/17 14:22, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:10:13PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 04/06/17 13:20, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:15:19PM +0200, Michal Schorm wrote:
Is there some place I could read about this? The rest of the email
didn't make m
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:10:13PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 04/06/17 13:20, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:15:19PM +0200, Michal Schorm wrote:
> >>>Is there some place I could read about this? The rest of the email
> >>>didn't make much sense without this context I am
On 04/06/17 13:20, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:15:19PM +0200, Michal Schorm wrote:
Is there some place I could read about this? The rest of the email
didn't make much sense without this context I am missing.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/WhatHappenedTo
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 02:15:19PM +0200, Michal Schorm wrote:
> > Is there some place I could read about this? The rest of the email
> > didn't make much sense without this context I am missing.
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/WhatHappenedToPkgdb
Still unclear. As far as I've
> Is there some place I could read about this? The rest of the email
> didn't make much sense without this context I am missing.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/WhatHappenedToPkgdb
--
Michal Schorm
Associate Software Engineer
Core Services - Databases Team
Red Hat
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> With pagure becoming a front-end to dist-git, I have been wondering about the
> future of the packager group.
Is there some place I could read about this? The rest of the email
didn't make much sense without this context I am m
On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 05:02:39PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>
> > The packager group is currently used for a few things:
> > - tracking purpose, it's one of our biggest groups and also one of the most
> > active
> > - members of
On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 01:31:50PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote:
>On 3 Jun 2017 8:33 am, "Pierre-Yves Chibon" wrote:
>
>I think to abandon the packager group for non-scratch builds would be a
>mistake.
>The sponsorship to packager status is an important part of ensuring that
>th
On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 03:12:48PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 21:42 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > What do you think?
>
> Bodhi also currently cares about users being in the packager group to
> decide whether they can create buildroot overrides (I think, not
> actuall
On Sat, 2017-06-03 at 09:32 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> Bodhi I believe also check this, maybe Randy could confirm this.
I think I just answered this in another e-mail. Let me know if you need
more info.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 21:42 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> What do you think?
Bodhi also currently cares about users being in the packager group to
decide whether they can create buildroot overrides (I think, not
actually 100% sure). It uses pkgdb to decide whether a user has access
to create
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> The packager group is currently used for a few things:
> - tracking purpose, it's one of our biggest groups and also one of the most
> active
> - members of the packager group can do official package review
> - members of the p
On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 01:31:50PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote:
> If I had the opportunity to choose the setup I think I'd lean towards,
> anyone can authenticate to the dist-git via pagure (I'd even lean towards a
> full open setup via oauth etc and not fedora account only). Anyone can PR
> that is
On 3 Jun 2017 8:33 am, "Pierre-Yves Chibon" wrote:
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 08:52:22PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > With the deprecation of pkgdb2, pagure will make it even easier to give
someone
> > access to a
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 08:52:22PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > With the deprecation of pkgdb2, pagure will make it even easier to give
> > someone
> > access to a package, if someone wants to help you maintain
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> With the deprecation of pkgdb2, pagure will make it even easier to give
> someone
> access to a package, if someone wants to help you maintain a package, you can
> just grant them access to the project on pagure. They will only
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 10:16:16PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > As we're moving things, can we do something in Pagure to cover this, so
> > the FPCA isn't needed here?
> Note that pagure running at pagure.io no longer requires FPCA, I was here
> speaking about the pagure instance running on
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 04:07:15PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git)
>
> I know Richard Fontana has expressed some interest in reducing the need
> for FPCA. Maybe this is
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>> (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git)
>
> I know Richard Fontana has expressed some interest in reducing the need
> for FPCA. Maybe this is an opportun
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> (Note: pagure can and will enforce the FPCA for dist-git)
I know Richard Fontana has expressed some interest in reducing the need
for FPCA. Maybe this is an opportunity to move in that direction? I
know Spot has said that "Licen
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> Good Morning Everyone,
>
> With pagure becoming a front-end to dist-git, I have been wondering about the
> future of the packager group.
>
> The packager group is currently used for a few things:
> - tracking purpose, it's one
Good Morning Everyone,
With pagure becoming a front-end to dist-git, I have been wondering about the
future of the packager group.
The packager group is currently used for a few things:
- tracking purpose, it's one of our biggest groups and also one of the most
active
- members of the packager g
37 matches
Mail list logo
