On 23 September 2016 at 22:39, Ben Rosser <rosser.bjr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > > I was re-reading the third party software policy (and also the FESCo ticket: > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1617#comment:10), and happened to > notice that it looks like WGs are currently intended to be the final > arbiters of what repositories are and are not allowed to be included in > particular Fedora editions, particularly this comment: > > "The submission process is edition-based. Acceptance into Fedora > Workstation, for instance, does not guarantee your software will be as > easily available in another Fedora Edition or in a Fedora Spin. It is up to > each working group or special interest groups how to make available any > software in their system." > > I realize I'm a little late to bring this up, but this seems potentially > concerning if, say, the Workstation and Server WGs both want to include a > third party repository that packages the same software but differently. This > would then potentially make the editions incompatible, which doesn't seem > ideal. > > Perhaps this is an implementation detail to be worked out, but as it's not > otherwise mentioned in the policy... it seems like in the interests of > standardization it would be better if a single group (FESCo? perhaps another > WG dedicated to this purpose?) were the final arbiter of whether or not a > third party repository could be included in the distribution at all, and > then it would be up to the WGs to decide if and how to ship it. Or, at the > very least, if a single group had some oversight over the entire process > even if they did not have to approve each and every third party repository > themselves. > > Skimming through the discussion on the subject it didn't seem like this > point seemed controversial to anyone else. So maybe other people have > already thought about this and decided it's not a big deal. But I figured it > couldn't hurt to ask. > It isn't considered a problem for a couple of reasons: 1) Editions are not meant to be combined so they are in many ways 'mutually' exclusive at least at the 'top' level. Yes the packages are built from the same builders but it is meant that package choices or lifetimes could be different. 2) The 3rd party software is not installed from the Fedora media but is up to the person who chose it to install. And people are already doing this sort of crazy combinations now. People wander onto various help places daily saying "I just enabled repo X and repo Y and now I can't do Z". All the groups are doing is trying to cut that down to a smaller number by curating a couple of known ones. -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
