5:18 p.m.
On 23.02.2009 12:12, RPM Fusion Wiki wrote:
The following page has been changed by AndreaMusuruane:
http://rpmfusion.org/Goals?action=diff&rev1=7&rev2=8
[...]
Andrea, thx for your comments and enhancements. Much appreciated.
One general remark: I guess we should try to keep the page itself
discussion free once we finish it.
=== Ideas nobody is working on ===
+ [musuruan: is it feasible to have some of these ideas as GSoC?]
I'm not really familiar with GSoC, but I doubt that it'll work when we
do it directly. Maybe it's easier and better if it could be done as GSoC
projects done in Fedora. But I'm not sure if Fedora would be willing to
do something like that.
==== Installer ====
A small helper app that enables RPM Fusion (and other repos?) and does the initial
configuration (e.g. install xine-lib-extras-nonfree if xine-lib was found to be installed
earlier).
@@ -96, +98 @@
Another small app (either tied into or separate of the install helper?) could things
similar to the one jockey does in ubuntu (see
https://launchpad.net/jockey and http://people.ubuntu.com/~pitti/screenshots/jockey/ ).
Firewing1 is thinking about doing something like this already, which should make the
"users don't know which graphics driver to choose" part easier. But the goal
should remain: make things "just work", so no configuration options if they are
not strictly needed
+
+ [musuruan: instead of writing something from scratch cannot we use Jockey? It is
designed to be distribution agnostic.]
That is the plan afaik. Sorry, that wasn't really obvious. Fixed now.
==== mirror lag / skip broken by default ====
@@ -115, +119 @@
==== improve the docs ====
- There are lots of FAQ, Howto and other docs on the net that describe how to use RPM
Fusion; often those are misleading, not fully right, outdated or they disagree with each
other; should we try to not only be the unofficial official 3rd party repo for Fedora, but
also be the offical 3rd party source for all the docs that can't go straight to
Fedora?
+ There are lots of FAQ, Howto and other docs on the net that describe how to use RPM
Fusion; often those are misleading, not fully right, outdated or they disagree with each
other; should we try to not only be the unofficial official 3rd party repo for Fedora, but
also be the official 3rd party source for all the docs that can't go straight to
Fedora?
+
+ [musuruan: can we have a synergy with 3rd party doc sites? Fedora FAQ and Fedorasolved
comes to my mind.]
Yes, maybe that would be a good idea.
* rpmfusion-buildsys-list is broken;
+ * no announcement mailing list;
+
+ [musuruan: what is the problem in having one?]
it's the usual problem: Somebody need to sit down and do it/poke the
people with access to the necessary places ;-)
+
+ [musuruan: can we look for more contributors in the fedora-docs-list?]
Sure.
On 23.02.2009 12:18, RPM Fusion Wiki wrote:
The following page has been changed by AndreaMusuruane:
http://rpmfusion.org/Goals?action=diff&rev1=8&rev2=9
[...]
+ * we need a place where to host RPM Fusion projects. Something like
[[https://fedorahosted.org|Fedora Hosted]].
Do we? Why can't we use Fedora Hosted directly? Sure, some of the tools
we need may deal with nonfree software, but I guess all of us want the
tools itself be open source and thus acceptable for Fedora Hosted?
CU
knurd
8:27 a.m.
New subject: [RPM Fusion] Update of "Goals" by AndreaMusuruane
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> wrote:
Andrea, thx for your comments and enhancements. Much appreciated.
You are welcome.
One general remark: I guess we should try to keep the page itself
discussion
free once we finish it.
> === Ideas nobody is working on ===
> + [musuruan: is it feasible to have some of these ideas as GSoC?]
I'm not really familiar with GSoC, but I doubt that it'll work when we do it
directly. Maybe it's easier and better if it could be done as GSoC projects
done in Fedora. But I'm not sure if Fedora would be willing to do something
like that.
The basic idea is to gain visibility and to find some developers (i.e.
non-packagers) since we need them. I don't know if GCoC is feasible or
not, but it is very visible.
> + + [musuruan: can we have a synergy with 3rd party doc sites?
Fedora FAQ
> and Fedorasolved comes to my mind.]
Yes, maybe that would be a good idea.
Do somebody in RPM Fusion know them and can contact them?
> * rpmfusion-buildsys-list is broken; + * no announcement
mailing list;
> + + [musuruan: what is the problem in having one?]
it's the usual problem: Somebody need to sit down and do it/poke the people
with access to the necessary places ;-)
Yep... we need more people with these rights.
> + + [musuruan: can we look for more contributors in the
fedora-docs-list?]
Sure.
Do somebody in RPM Fusion know them and can contact them?
> + * we need a place where to host RPM Fusion projects. Something
like
> [[https://fedorahosted.org|Fedora Hosted]].
Do we? Why can't we use Fedora Hosted directly? Sure, some of the tools we
need may deal with nonfree software, but I guess all of us want the tools
itself be open source and thus acceptable for Fedora Hosted?
I'm not sure but I don't think that we can host applications whose
licenses do not follow the Fedora Guidelines in Fedora Hosted.
Bye,
Andrea.
11:53 a.m.
New subject: [RPM Fusion] Update of "Goals" by AndreaMusuruane
On 25.02.2009 09:27, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis
<fedora(a)leemhuis.info> wrote:
>> === Ideas nobody is working on ===
>> + [musuruan: is it feasible to have some of these ideas as GSoC?]
> I'm not really familiar with GSoC, but I doubt that it'll work when we do it
> directly. Maybe it's easier and better if it could be done as GSoC projects
> done in Fedora. But I'm not sure if Fedora would be willing to do something
> like that.
The basic idea is to gain visibility and to find some developers (i.e.
non-packagers) since we need them. I don't know if GCoC is feasible or
not, but it is very visible.
Sure, but do we have the manpower to mentor someone and will Google
think we have it/accept us as project? I wouldn't do the latter if I
would have to chose; I'd tell us "realize your ideas as GSoC project
within the Fedora project"
>> + + [musuruan: can we have a synergy with 3rd party doc
sites? Fedora FAQ
>> and Fedorasolved comes to my mind.]
> Yes, maybe that would be a good idea.
Do somebody in RPM Fusion know them and can contact them?
I know some of the Fedora Unity guys. They sometimes ask for advice. But
the cooperation could be better -- in a few cases I saw them documenting
workarounds instead of telling us to fix our shit...
And I for one don't like the structure of both websites much (maybe it's
just me). I'd much prefer a wiki and a structure like
http://ubuntuguide.org
>> * rpmfusion-buildsys-list is broken; + * no announcement
mailing list;
>> + + [musuruan: what is the problem in having one?]
> it's the usual problem: Somebody need to sit down and do it/poke the people
> with access to the necessary places ;-)
Yep... we need more people with these rights.
Well, we IMHO need to remove *all* "Single points of failure" in our
human or computer infrastructure ;-)
>> + + [musuruan: can we look for more contributors in the
fedora-docs-list?]
> Sure.
Do somebody in RPM Fusion know them and can contact them?
And what exactly would we ask for? Same question btw reg. the 3rd party
docs site idea above...
>> + * we need a place where to host RPM Fusion projects.
Something like
>> [[https://fedorahosted.org|Fedora Hosted]].
> Do we? Why can't we use Fedora Hosted directly? Sure, some of the tools we
> need may deal with nonfree software, but I guess all of us want the tools
> itself be open source and thus acceptable for Fedora Hosted?
I'm not sure but I don't think that we can host applications whose
licenses do not follow the Fedora Guidelines in Fedora Hosted.
No, of course not. Maybe I was not clear enough: The tools we need might
deal with non-free software, but I assume the tools itself (like
rpmfusion-config-display, kmodtool, ...) will be open-source and thus
should acceptable for Fedora Hosted as long as the Fedora project
doesn't say "no".
Cu
knurd
1:18 p.m.
New subject: [RPM Fusion] Update of "Goals" by AndreaMusuruane
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis
<fedora(a)leemhuis.info> wrote:
Sure, but do we have the manpower to mentor someone and will Google
think we
have it/accept us as project? I wouldn't do the latter if I would have to
chose; I'd tell us "realize your ideas as GSoC project within the Fedora
project"
I just noticed that Xavier was a mentor last year for GSoC. Maybe he
can share his thought about this.
BTW, I have absolutely nothing against realizing our ideas within the
Fedora project if it is feasible.
>>> + + [musuruan: can we look for more contributors in the
>>> fedora-docs-list?]
>>
>> Sure.
>
> Do somebody in RPM Fusion know them and can contact them?
And what exactly would we ask for? Same question btw reg. the 3rd party docs
site idea above...
One reason why our docs are not the best you can find is because we
are not content writers, we are packagers, sysadmins or developers. We
need some of these profiles too.
My idea is just to ask if there are content writers in
fedora-docs-list with some spare time to improve the documentation in
RPM Fusion.
The same can be asked to content writers for 3rd party doc sites.
Moreover, we can also find some way not to duplicate the same
information over different sites (and maybe with errors in it). A
clear goal of each doc site should be defined. Each sites should
reference the others when needed.
> I'm not sure but I don't think that we can host
applications whose
> licenses do not follow the Fedora Guidelines in Fedora Hosted.
No, of course not. Maybe I was not clear enough: The tools we need might
deal with non-free software, but I assume the tools itself (like
rpmfusion-config-display, kmodtool, ...) will be open-source and thus should
acceptable for Fedora Hosted as long as the Fedora project doesn't say
"no".
If that is feasible I'm all for it.
Bye,
Andrea.
5539
days inactive
5540
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
3 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Andrea Musuruane -
Thorsten Leemhuis