[Fedora-packaging] Re: supporting closed source operating systems?

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com> wrote:
> and because having libvirt on Windows is a highly desirable outcome
> for us, we would be prepared to do the work either with maintainers,
> or ourselves, to maintain MinGW subpackages of these packages.  If at
> some point in the future we aren't able to continue that work, then as
> with any other Fedora package they would eventually be removed from
> Fedora by standard processes.
>
> The same would apply on a case-by-case basis to any other library.

I abhor case by case restrictions.. especially ones where we are
trying to judge whether or not a single person as the time to actually
maintain the package. We sure as hell don't do that for the rest of
the packaging space.  You have to do much better than "highly unlikely
due to time commitment".  I don't consider that a bright line at all.
I need something as a policy statement which we block on at the time
of package review.

And speaking of review... since you are doing this as a subpackage to
existing packages we don't even have a requirement that this sort of
thing goes through a peer review process because they aren't new
packages.  A bright line judgment process MUST involve peer review
before... not after...the changes to the spec file are sitting in our
cvs.  I suggest you draft a policy statement as to how the review of
mingw subpackages is suppose to work... and exactly what a reviewer is
suppose to block on or how a reviewer is even suppose to test that the
libraries work as expected.

What I still don't have an answer for is why does this need to be in
the main repo? Why can't we spin off a mingw compiled repo as a
separate addon repository inside our infrastructure?  And then the
minGW SIG can deal with library inclusions into that addon repo
however they want..with their own submission and review
policy..separate from the main repository policy.


>
> I should stress again that this is no different from how Fedora
> packages currently get into and remain in Fedora: 'libbarquux' doesn't
> get into Fedora unless there is someone willing to maintain it, and if
> no one is willing to maintain it any more, then it becomes orphaned
> and eventually gets removed.

New packages go through a peer review step before we let them in.  At
a minimum mingw cross-compiled crap is going to need its own
submission review..which isn't going to happen if we allow this in as
subpackages because our existing review process doesn't extend to
subpackage creation.

-jef