On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 13:20 +0100, FranÃois Cami wrote: > Of course, we could look at things differently: for a package to be > marked critpath, it should have users or be a dependency of some other > package with users. This is pretty inevitably implicit in the current definition of critpath - packages that are necessary to boot the system and use it. :) Okay, there's slightly unexpected cases like openldap, which isn't necessary for most people to login and use their systems but gets brought in because it's a dependency of various auth mechanisms which *optionally support* LDAP, but even that is obviously used by >0 people. > And packages with enough known users should always land in critpath, > otherwise we might break systems users depend on. That doesn't fit in with the current function-based definition, so your proposal is to change that? > At this point, non-critpath packages may be left to their maintainers' wishes. maybe we could have a three-tier system - critpath, commonly used, other. but we don't really have any very reliable methods for determining use of packages yet. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
