X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=RRfJwBfFh6J9SZwmsVqjv5neN6G2lSh5KB1n5IGChOE=; b=AfNT445iFhuHLOvnk8+LPnOlJpYvSukzq6Q7MVHzlBXQq7bKtzS/kDg9YWh258+hxu PwJi4/6ux9/QJJUJ8NxqWiKlq4EzSIYzT5m3TUdqSv+gMMyg1jtYo7629CsOR3T7hW3i QrZOkR7Q3h8Nsx2/s8G/Ea8xw3Pg1fYBqNTi0S7OPS0DW23EptcPEoKCk4HpeIUxVlJD OaJTLNaINraBoSwm2ayLpRe5NyqoYSVAoh8LZCzcRiQOvCqHa2bpqzUmehYbAz/lTLeD iGfWCHkCKPl3DE+IYNIUTICCGjGfLq4qi4QRNZXRvbEQL51Uu8T/Aoojxr4MoqSczMhb HvCw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkq46+Xzr5947aje0pgN3jj+kDupTqLEM9zWIRe7rAvNRJff1JJzim9efsg8lzR9MwSloSq X-Received: by 10.152.6.133 with SMTP id b5mr21395904laa.33.1442325501541; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 06:58:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: mjd AT hackvana DOT com X-Originating-IP: [120.21.115.248] In-Reply-To: <20150915115059.5939.qmail@stuge.se> References: <55F7EE7F DOT 101 AT unige DOT ch> <20150915115059 DOT 5939 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> From: "Mitch Davis (mjd+geda-user AT hackvana DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 23:58:01 +1000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: P_T8L7lmrNMtO_eixga90h5etq0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [geda-user] Happy birthday To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01493fa82b98a7051fc99379 Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk --089e01493fa82b98a7051fc99379 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > Juergen Harms (juergen DOT harms AT unige DOT ch) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > > distributions have the policy of strictly limiting the distributed > > software to stable versions of upstream packages. > > Yes, it's really sad that distributions offer so little added value. > There is a huge potential for distribution differentiation in > following upstreams much more closely. Oh well. > I can speak for the Fedora situation, but this probably applies equally well to several distros. Fedora with it's policy of "Freedom, Friends, Features, *First*" has a policy of staying current with upstream as much as possible. They are very willing to run with newer bleeding-edge versions. Many official packages in Fedora are compiled from source that came straight out of a git repo, and there's a culture of pushing patches upstream. Packaging work doesn't happen by itself. It's a fair bet the reason Fedora 22 is still at 1.8.2 is because there's no Fedora user who knows packaging, *and* who uses geda-gaf, *and* who has stood up to do the packaging. FWIW, Fedora provides a no-cost build architecture called COPR which builds packages from source, and serves the packages out to testers and the public. This is used by one KiCad user to build and serve dev-branch versions of KiCad for Fedora. The same could be done with geda-gaf. http://developerblog.redhat.com/2014/03/11/intro-coprs/ https://fedorahosted.org/copr/wiki/UserDocs https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/mangelajo/kicad/ If the project would like to see a more recent version of geda-gaf go into Fedora (or any other distro that welcomes bleeding edge), someone will have to step up and do the packaging. From my past experience with other packages, Fedora will welcome the effort. Mitch. --089e01493fa82b98a7051fc99379 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT c= om> wrote:
Juergen Harms (juergen DOT harms AT uni= ge.ch) [via geda-user AT delorie.= com] wrote:
> distributions have the policy of strictly limiting the distributed
> software to stable versions of upstream packages.

Yes, it's really sad that distributions offer so little added va= lue.
There is a huge potential for distribution differentiation in
following upstreams much more closely. Oh well.

I = can speak for the Fedora situation, but this probably applies equally well = to several distros.

Fedora with it's policy of "Freedom, Friends, Features, First= " has a policy of staying current with upstream as much as poss= ible.=C2=A0 They are very willing to run with newer bleeding-edge versions.= =C2=A0 Many official packages in Fedora are compiled from source that came = straight out of a git repo, and there's a culture of pushing patches up= stream. =C2=A0

Packaging work doesn't happen by itself.=C2=A0 I= t's a fair bet the reason Fedora 22 is still at 1.8.2 is because there&= #39;s no Fedora user who knows packaging, and who uses geda-gaf, = and who has stood up to do the packaging.

FWIW, Fedora provides = a no-cost build architecture called COPR which=20 builds packages from source, and serves the packages out to testers and=20 the public.=C2=A0 This is used by one KiCad user to build and serve=20 dev-branch versions of KiCad for Fedora.=C2=A0 The same could be done with= =20 geda-gaf.

=C2=A0 http://developerblog.redhat.com/2014/03/11/intro-coprs/
=C2=A0 https:/= /fedorahosted.org/copr/wiki/UserDocs
=C2=A0 https://copr.fedoraproject.org/co= prs/mangelajo/kicad/

If the project would like to see a more rec= ent version of geda-gaf go into Fedora (or any other distro that welcomes b= leeding edge), someone will have to step up and do the packaging.=C2=A0 Fro= m my past experience with other packages, Fedora will welcome the effort.
Mitch.
--089e01493fa82b98a7051fc99379--