MinGW devel rpms

Jeff Spaleta jspaleta at gmail.com
Tue Aug 12 16:08:02 UTC 2008

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com> wrote:
> The fact that the Board has meetings in private and publishes minutes
> somewhere on the net _does not_ exclude them from being courteous to
> the people they are discussing.  And at the very least _inform them
> directly of decisions that were made_, and _make detailed reasoning
> available to them_ so they can understand why those decisions were
> made.  I think this decision was misinformed.  But maybe it isn't
> misinformed - no idea, because there is no IRC log of the meeting[1].

1) Most of the discussion was on the fab thread... the 60+ post fab
thread.. that Dennis gratefully pointed out, was probably too long.
There is absolutely nothing new in terms of reasoning in the board
meeting that was not stated on the fab thread. If I had heard anything
new that wasn't expressed in the fab thread already.. either Paul or I
would probably have badgered that person into taking the new policy
ideas to fab.  The board discussion was directly informed by the fab
thread. The very same that thread that at least 5 different board
members made a post to and the one you participated in.

The only thing new was I got to pick spot's brain a weebit bit about
setting up additional branches in koji cuz he's done something similar
for perl in the past.  That was at best tangential in an effort to
make sure we can actually can make a separated space in our
infrastructure for packages compiled with mingw...and had nothing to
do with the policy reasoning as to whether to allow or not allow mingw
compiled payloads in at all.  And you were in the thread so you know
why I was interested in talking to someone about the technical bits.
In fact you challenged me to specifically find someone who understood
the infrastructure stuff better than I did in the fab thread. I did. I
found spot.<nick burns>You're welcome.</nick burns>

2) I said explicitly on the fab thread that I was going to take the
policy issue to the board meeting.... the fab thread you were in
on...did you ask to participate when I said that? No.

July 14th a post in the fab thread in a direct response to you:
"If we end up deciding that the dlls are generally not appropriate in
the main repository (and that is something I plan to discuss more at
tomorrow's board meeting) than we can certainly implement the
technical details to open a mingw addon repo constructed like EPEL..
if we want to allow it at all."

You sure as hell should have known that I was going to take this to
the board meeting.. we had been discussing this for DAYS on fab. And I
only took it to the Board have YOU said there was no more point in
continuing the discussion with me on FAB.  How much more bloody
discussion did we need before I was suppose to take it to the board?
Another 60 posts?

If anything I should be the one to apologize, I've not finished the
strawman that fesco requested of me in regard to what the
infrastructure separation should look like.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list