On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:36:33PM +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 07:40:37PM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 19:00, Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > Matt Domsch wrote: > > > >> I'm sensing a growing frustration from some of the people who have > > > >> been heavily involved in Fedora for a long time, a sense of burnout. > > > >> We've all felt it from time to time. The lack of people stepping > > > >> forward to take on leadership tasks, such as the Spins SIG leader, the > > > >> election coordinator, and similar is concerning to me. Am I alone in > > > >> this? > > > > > > > > No you're not. > > > > > > > > I can't explain why concisely but Fedora was and is no longer an > > > > awesome engineering platform where I could Get Things Done. > > > > Actually, I think this pretty concisely describes my burnout. It's getting > > harder and harder for things to get done. (Yes, I realize this coming from > > the person that has to play the bad guy about bundled libraries all the > > time keeping packages out but... I've recently asked if we should relax > > those guidelines since it seems that no one wants to enforce them > > consistently.) > > > > Wow, this is huge; > > We all know *why* our guidelines and rules set out the boundaries of the road > to salvation, and they *are* superior to any other distribution. Really, I > think they do and that they are. We have the most savvy people in this world > working on these things continuously, and while I may not understand some of > them, I trust these people. I think we should stick with them guidelines as > much as possible. "As much as possible" being the key words in that sentence. > > We seem to lack the willingness to seek compromise in many aspects; case in > point here is bundled libraries, but more in general we seem to lack the > formerly existing attitude of "Hell yeah. How?" - I'm afraid it has become > "Why? If ..., and if ... Euh... No." > > Example case in point is rubygem-passenger, shipping a bundled, forked and > modified legacy version of the boost C-library. Bad, bad, bad. > > I can't fix it. I'm a terrible C coder. Nobody looking at reviews can fix it > before the end of dawn, and only after it's fixed it would be accepted as a > package. > > This means that meanwhile, thousands of us downstream consumers run rubygem- > passenger customly built, packaged (maybe) and deployed to production, > whatever was the latest version when someone had a chance to look for updates. > Bad, bad, bad. Very bad. > > I think a better sustainable route is to allow the package to get in, and log > massive amounts of bugs against it to fix what would then be ending up on > many, many systems; The effect is downstream consumers run in circles less and > less because they do not have to build and deploy the foo on their own and the > Fedora Project (or the Red Hat Bugzilla) becomes the tip of the point of all > that momentum. *I* think that's worth balancing off road-to-salvation- > guidelines vs. actually-might-get-it-done-proper. > If you're on packaging@xxxxxxxxxx, we should probably take discussion there. Here's the fpc ticket with the question of whether we should relax the guidelines: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/15 Note that your description of the rubygem-passenger system could still fail to pass the test under revised guidelines depending on what they turn out to be. For instance, the guidelines might allow bundling of the latest upstream version or of the version provided by Fedora, or they might require that the package maintainer be able to code fixes should they be necessary. It's probably a good idea to join packaging@xxxxxxxxxx and give reasons that requirements like that aren't needed. > However, more relevant to my previous post; If I had the slightest impression > I could improve this in the Fedora Project, hell I'd run for FESCo with solely > this agenda item. I've not ran for FESCo, so guess what my impression is. > > Fedora Project may not even know or ever hear its throwing up roadblocks > simply by de-motivation on the account of prior roadblocks having been thrown > up whether any individual within the project or the project itself thinks of > these as actual roadblocks. > > Yes, it's mostly eager, savvy, renegade, stubborn, visionary and/or more > established contributors running into these kinds of things -but it's also the > group of people you can safely assume will do the right thing given a level of > compromise to be sought or dare I say it, free reign. > Yep, +1 to this portion, and entirely ontopic for fab :-) -Toshio
Attachment:
pgptr0kM6P1cE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
