#716 Requesting sponsorship for OCaml packages CamlPDF and CPDF
Closed: accepted by johnwhitington. Opened by johnwhitington.

Hello everyone,

My PDF command line tool Cpdf has recently changed to an open-source AGPL license which should be acceptable in Fedora. I've produced the first .spec file and tested it with Koji, and now I'm looking for a sponsor to shepherd it through. It's written in OCaml (with a little C).

Here's a link:

https://community.coherentpdf.com/

Thanks,

John


Just to make sure there is no confusion, in Fedora we sponsor packagers, who may then import and maintain new packages via the package review process. This is in contrast to e.g. Debian, where packages are sponsored.

If you want to become a Fedora packager and maintain a package for Cpdf yourself, you are in the right place (but should probably go make sure you fully understand the sponsorship process).

If you want someone else to maintain a package for you, then you would need to find someone who is already a Fedora packager and has an interest in Cpdf, probably because they already use it themselves. There is no formal process for doing that. You could ask on the devel mailing list, but this is a bit of a long shot: there is a very limited supply of Fedora packagers who are looking around for new packages to work on. If you have a forum, mailing list, or other means of connecting with the existing user community, putting out a call there for interested current or potential Fedora packagers could also be worth a try.

Thanks. I was expecting to have to maintain the package myself. I have read the sponsorship pages on the website.

In an ideal world it would happen organically, with each package being produced by an enthusiastic user who also knows how to package. But, with it being OCaml, the pool is small.

Cpdf has been packaged by others for Arch, Gentoo and NixOS. I have packaged it myself for Winget (Windows, done) and Brew (MacOS, awaiting approval). I am currently working on packages for Debian and Fedora.

John, you should be able to already open a new package review bug for the package, attaching the spec file. (Follow the package review process linked above.) I will then take a look at the quality of the spec.

Done:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2363088

Thanks Richard.

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

Metadata