On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 05:16:14PM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 01:11:47PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: >> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 14:36 -0600, Adam Miller wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > <snip> >> > > Take a random downstream app. (Firefox is an example, but there are many >> > > others.) Right now, it only needs to track a single version of python, >> > > or a single auth framework, even if it may be used on any desktop or any >> > > spin. The implication is that in some sort of future with SIG-specific >> > > conflicting frameworks, this downstream app maintainer now must be familiar >> > > with, and handle *all* of the frameworks, even though they're not >> > > specifcally a part of any SIG. That's sort of a rotten thing to do to >> > > Joe Random Maintainer. >> > > >> > > You could say that the SIG needs to then supply people to handle every >> > > potential downstream app, but that's also not nice, and is going to lead >> > > to fun coordination with updates. >> > <snip> >> > >> > I don't think that's an issue either, I'm not proposing we change >> > anything such that it could cause problems. I'm saying the way things >> > are now works and I don't understand the desire to change it. >> >> The way things are now "works" because of status quo. We tell anybody >> who wants to change status quo to go start a fork and do it there. >> >Wait... The entire list of times I can remember someone being encouraged to >take their contributions elsewhere are: > >1) Kernel modules >2) Non-free software >3) Free software with legal issues >4) I think something to do with packaging content may have resulted in > something but I don't know anything about the outcome there. > >Who's been told to fork Fedora because of the status-quo-target-audience? Not in so many words, but the whole Zope/Plone fiasco from a few releases ago seems a prime example here. Fedora moved on with python, and we didn't allow a compat-python package for Zope and Plone to continue working. The reasons were varied, but they boiled down to python being a framework and having two frameworks providing almost identical things was not deemed to be something Fedora was going to do [1]. Those are the kinds of headaches Bill is talking about. josh [1] I realize Fedora is now doing python 2.6 and python3 side-by-side. I guess we'll find out how manageable that really is now ;) -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
