Package Maintainers Flags policy

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Tue May 19 22:55:44 UTC 2009


On 05/19/2009 02:51 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 05/19/2009 05:44 PM, Denis Leroy wrote:
>> That's a pretty vague sentence. Do we have something more specific to
>> work with, to justify this whole fiasco ? Have people complained ? Were
>> threats made ? Bugzilla tickets filed ? Did the PRC threaten to add
>> fedoraproject.org to the big firewall if we don't stop shipping FreeCIV
>> immediately (a CeasePackage-and-desist letter :-) ) ?
>
> People complained. I was asked to write a policy draft to handle flags.
> Well, to be specific, I was asked to document the unwritten "no flags"
> policy that we'd had from the Red Hat Linux days, but after giving it
> thought and consulting with Red Hat Legal, I came up with the current
> policy which:
>
> * permits flags in optional subpackages
> * permits flags when their use is not technically or substantively
> essential to the package

s/not//

?

> * gives an explicit exception to flags when they are generic (fictional
> countries count as generic)

Note that this one is tricky.  A generic flag is fine.  But if a real 
group (not necessarily a country) associates themselves with the flag, 
it would become banned under the current policy.

> * has an exception clause where a packager can plead their case to FESCo
>
> This is substantially divergent from "No Flags".
>
<nod>

-Toshio




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list