On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 12:01:10AM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote: > On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Paul W. Frields<stickster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > * Includes Anaconda fixes as represented in Jeroen's F11 repo: > > ?http://kanarip.com/anaconda/f11/i386/ > > In some conversations tonight this might be a showstopper for use of > the Fedora marks, since we're including non-Fedora software on the > spin, it could be at best called a remix. Of course, if we can get > the anaconda team to release it as an official update, problem > solved...... >From the fedora-devel-list traffic of 28 July, it sounds like Jeroen and David Cantrell have been working together to get an updated anaconda package built, tested, and put into updates-released. At that point it would be considered "official" again, and not have to be labeled as a Remix (with all the ensuing trademark removals necessary). Can that happen in time for Paul's deadline to get the image on the keys, I don't know. I sure hope so. I'm also concerned about the larger implications that this part of the policy imposes. If a single package's maintainers choose not to issue an update (for whatever reason: lack of time; unhappy with the proposed update), but a proposed Spin or Remix really requires that update, policy today forces it to be a Remix, not a Spin. With >8000 srpms in the tree now and growing, this gives a lot of packagers a pretty good lever (intentional or not; used or not) over another group's Spin vs Remix decision. Someone in provenpackager could resolve the issue by building and promoting the necessary update, possibly against the wishes and plans of the package maintainer. Perhaps this just shows a need for proposed Spins to get their requirements into the Spin SIG as early as possible so these kinds of issues can be worked out in sufficient time. Thanks, Matt _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
