Proposed new feature: Provers

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at
Fri Aug 8 16:14:51 UTC 2008

Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 16:00 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 09:30:28AM -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
>>> And what criteria are those? I don't think this is the first feature  
>>> that has been mostly a packaging affair. Last I checked our definition  
>>> of feature was "something worth mentioning in the release notes."
>> I agree. Here the issue is merely communicating something new and nice.
>> Alan is willing to do the associated paperwork so this is certainly a
>> feature.
> Haskell support is a feature; is there a reason why this shouldn't be as
> well?
I think it depends on how its written up.  For instance, this past FESCo 
meeting, there was a Feature Proposal: python-nss -- python bindings to 

Really that's just a package, not a feature.  However, if it was written 
as "Take steps to make FIPS 140 verification possible" and this was one 
of the steps taken, it would be a better Feature proposal.  (Being able 
to say we've converted foo, bar, and baz important programs or X number 
of programs to python-nss would make it better yet).

So similarly, just saying Fedora has a collection of provers isn't a 
Feature.  But saying, in Fedora 10 we've made an effort to include foo, 
bar, baz important provers for Target Audience so they can find all the 
tools they need to do X Type of Work.  Similarly, "We've done work so 
that foo and bar can import and export the same file format", or other 
work to show how we're making the user experience better would make a 
stronger case for a feature.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list