Review queue/FESCo after the merge

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 17:23 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 19.11.2007 10:55, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 06:56:22AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> Someone in a lot cases (like this one) could just realize many of the
> >> changes in the Packaging Guidelines directly in CVS for all effected
> >> packages. I think we should do that way more often and get away from the
> >> mantra "this is my package and nobody else is allowed to touch it" --
> >> that's why I took this particular issue as example to just show how it
> >> could be done. Now I expect from FESCo advice for this particular
> >> example as well as the general concept where one persons realizes
> >> changes in all effected packages directly in CVS.
> > I fully agree, but it is already explicitely permitted in
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/WhoIsAllowedToModifyWhichPackages
> 
> Well, I actually wrote most of it, but reality and documentation are two
> different things afaics, thus...
> 
> > All is needed is a set of scripts and maybe FESCo taking a lead. 
> 
> ...FESCo really is the one that needs to take a lead and say "we want
> that". Especially because some of the packages might be protected by
> ACLs, which creates further problems.
You are taking the words right out of my mouth.

> > One
> > occasion I see would be the mass rebuild of packages that depend on
> > doxygen after the 'non reproducible anchors bug' is fixed -- that is
> > doxygen is updated to latest version.
Right. I am wonder when this update willl happen ;)

> Firefox IMHO is the way better example 
Other examples:

* The perl base package split so far has not been reflected to quite a
number of perl packages being shipped (Probably because of their
maintainers having lost interest in Fedora).

* The FPG wants to split out static libs and to discontinue them
whenever possible. Several packagers still ship static libs as part of
their devel packages and ignore corresponding requests.

...

Technically, changes related to these topics are close to trivial (and
partially scriptable) for an "experienced user". The "normal" BZ'em, nag
maintainer and launch AWOL-process if necessary is much more effort and
(at least to me) too inconvenient on most occasions (ie. unless
inevitable for technical reasons).

Ralf