Plan for tomorrows (20070517) FESCO meeting

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Thu May 17 21:31:06 UTC 2007


On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 09:59:35AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 18:42 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 11:01:48AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 11:56 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> > > > Christopher Blizzard wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 10:31 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > > > >> All we're really trying to do is make good packages. We've tried
> > > > >> really
> > > > >> hard to make guidelines that lead to good, clean,
> > > > >> maintainable-long-after-you-are-dead packages.
> > > > >>
> > > > > 
> > > > > I hear what you are saying and I understand.  What I'm saying is that
> > > > > there's a fine line between making good packages and going over the
> > > > > edge.  So in your example, documenting is good.  But if you end up with
> > > > > an exception process?  I think that probably crosses the line.  Dispute
> > > > > resolution, maybe.  But I just worry that we're going somewhere we don't
> > > > > want to be.  Not sure how to properly put this into words.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm totally in agreement that an exception process isn't somewhere we 
> > > > want to go.  Arbitration when there's a dispute causes less impedance to 
> > > > actually getting things done, while still achieving the same goals.
> > > 
> > > But we're not even aware that there is a dispute, when people just
> > > decide not to follow the guidelines. There is no "Packaging QA" group,
> > > constantly auditing spec files.
> > 
> > This would still be the same issue if guidelines would tunr into laws
> > with exception policies. "If no one sees the crime, there was no
> > crime."
> > 
> > This thread seems to have been spawn by some explicit example of a
> > packager consciously violating the guidelines. But some of us don't
> > know what the example is. Could you post in some URL? Maybe the issue
> > is not solved by turning guidelines into stone, but by something else.
> 
> Top of thread:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-May/msg00351.html
> 
> Where it starts to get "interesting":
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-May/msg00459.html

I see, it's about static libs and changelog entries. Well, in fact
understand and share the packager's viewpoint and frustration in not
getting his issue through.

I don't want to roll up these specific topics again, and what these
topics are today, others will be tomorrow.

Instead of an iron set of rules where action needs to be taken to
create exceptions we better keep soft rules with a mechanism to take
something up to fesco if it is considered worth it.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070517/c4793f06/attachment.sig>


More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list