On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 05:36:37PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Wed, 2007-05-16 at 15:11 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote: > > > You want something to be discussed? Send a note to the list in reply to > > this mail and I'll add it to the schedule (I can't promise we will get > > to it tomorrow, but we'll most likely will if we don't run out of time). > > You can also propose topics in the meeting while it is in the "Free > > discussion around Fedora" phase. > > I think we need to discuss whether the Packaging Guidelines are only > Guidelines or if they're Rules. If the latter, whether we're willing to > take any actions to enforce them. If turnout is light, I don't expect > us to make any decisions but we can't continue to debate whether it's > okay to "bypass the guidelines". We have to know what standing they > have. But note that many of the guidelines that have been drafted and passed through have done so by assuming they are not carved in stone immobilizing any (sane) deviation, e.g. that they are capturing best practices and are to _guide_ the packager. Otherwise we'd have to be far more careful and cover more corner cases to not start slipping packages into becoming violating ones. Of course some guildelines are more law than other guidelines. My suggestion is: Instead of making the guidelines law, just allow people (reviewers etc.) to report possible violations to some entity (fesco or a fesco born sig) that can either wave them though or declare them blockers. /me doesn't want to have to rewrite all of the guidelines with exceptions to allow the kernel package to be conforming. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpdoe6mYGtGy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
