introducing 3e-calendar

[Michal Altmann]

Hi, thank you for your replies. My comment's are in the text bellow

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/05/2014 11:31 AM, solarflow99 wrote:
>
> Are you new to package building?  I was also not a fedora packager when I
> came on here, so I went through the online instructions to make sure they
> were as simple as possible, just the way package building should be.  Lots
> of others are willing to help too, did you read the process on the website?
>
>
No, we have own repository with rpm packages. Building of these
packages is very straightforward and nice in comparison with apt :)
I already read an instructions from this link :
http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors#Becoming_a_RPM_Fusion_contributor,
made bugzilla and other accounts and now I would like to prepare SRPM
for review.

>
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Michal Altmann <michal.altmann at zonio.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello, I would like to introduce myself as a packager of our product
>> called 3e server.
>
> Hi, and welcome!
>
>
Hi, thanks

>> I have a question about
>> non-open source codes, because our product is free only for some
>> limited count of users, we do not want to place source code in
>> required SRPM package. I was thinking about some kind of installer,
>> which download precompiled binaries from our website like in the case
>> of flash plugin. Is this an only option?
>
> No, you have multiple options:
> - The most straight-forward would be to package a closed source package, e.
> g.,  like the nvidia drivers. In this case you publilsh binary blobs, and
> package those using the binary as "source" in the rpm sense.
> - You might consider to publish your own repository. Creating a repository
> is not hard. However, you will probably need some help to create the
> packages first anyway.
> - The iinstaller solutions used for e. g., flash and spotify and steam
> reflects the fact that the vendors does not allow redistribution of their
> binary code.
>
> You might want to consider  allowing redistribution or not  proceeding.
> Allowing redistribution (like Nvidia) make packaging much easier. However,
> since you don't have control in this case there is a risk that e. g., other
> distributions might distribute outdated content. I think this is the reason
> other vendors does not allow it, or just distributes an installer.
>
>
>
> cheers!
>
> --alec
>

Thank you for very useful explanation. After reading this :
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines,
especially section 'No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries' I
was a little bit confused how can we deal with it. But if you say,
that is possible to include own binaries in SRPM, I have no problem
with it and it is definitely better solution than some kind of
installer.


Michal


>
> !DSPAM:2,5367633319658181289381!