fesco

#3500 Request to be added to Proven Packagers: farchord
Closed: Accepted by kevin. Opened by farchord.

Closed: Accepted
Reopen Issue

Hello! For those that do not know me, my name is Steve, and I have been taking care of updating the KDE stack for.... what feels like forever (In actuality, it's probably been close to 2.5 years).

It has happened several times in the past where I needed to do some rebuilds and I had to have someone else handle it for me because I lacked the appropriate permissions. Having PP permissions would allow me to rebuild those.

So, tl;dr: it is not critical, but it would be a really "nice to have". I also very much understand the points made in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Provenpackager_policy/ and to not abuse it.

Thank you!

For completeness, which packages (also, how many) would you need access rights for that you don't currently have? If it's like 5-10, then I think it would be reasonable to just ask the maintainers of those packages if they could grant you access. If it's like 200, then provenpackager sounds the way to go.

For completeness, which packages (also, how many) would you need access rights for that you don't currently have? If it's like 5-10, then I think it would be reasonable to just ask the maintainers of those packages if they could grant you access. If it's like 200, then provenpackager sounds the way to go.

That's a question that's rather difficult to answer, because I'd have to comb through all of the packages the KDE sig owns to check. For example, we seem to have a problem sometimes where we have people who do packaging work for fedora forget to add the kde-sig group, and then they simply become non-responsive. I was also thinking of offering to help with the maintenance of the Qt stack with Jan Grulich (He's the only one doing it right now) which would be 100% impossible for me w/o the PP powers.

(I do not know how many package rebuilds are needed when Qt is updated but I know there is quite a few)

Fun project - modify the KDE build scripts to output the list of packages installed into the buildroot that do not have kde-sig in the ACL

I'm leaning to approve but also curious if we can get some numbers before I do that.

+1

+1

Metadata Update from @ngompa:
- Issue tagged with: provenpackager

+1 here and I have sent a note to packager-sponsors asking for feedback.

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

Currently there are just over 900 packages (in the rpms namespace) in the kde-sig group btw:

$ pagure group kde-sig
Edited by petersen

+1

+1

+1

+1

I think we want to wait a few more days because the announcement to packager-sponsors was only made three days ago.

OK, enough time has passed. @kevin can you handle this?

It's been more than a week (sorry, I am off this week) and I see 12 +1s and 0 -1's, so this request is approved.

Use your powers wisely!

Metadata Update from @kevin:
- Issue close_status updated to: Accepted
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

It's been more than a week (sorry, I am off this week) and I see 12 +1s and 0 -1's, so this request is approved.

Use your powers wisely!

Of course, Uncle Ben! :) Thanks!
Metadata
None

provenpackager

None
None
None
Static archive. pagure.io was sunset in 2026; this is a read-only snapshot.
Red Hat Logo

Fedora is sponsored by Red Hat. Learn more about the relationship between Red Hat and Fedora »

© Red Hat, Inc. and others.