On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 10:35:18 -0900 Jef Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Tomas Mraz <tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Eventual blocking of the packages that violate this Fedora packaging > > rule was not yet definitively decided upon, but we agreed that the > > Fedora package maintainers should be warned that such blocking might > > happen before the Fedora 17 Alpha release. > > > Two questions, > > 1) Do we have an accurate list of the packages in this category. And > more importantly how many of these have closed CLAs in the packaging > trees which would prevent me as a good Samaritan from digging in and > committing a service file into the rawhide branch. The closed CLA > situations are going to be the touchiest, so lets not get blindsided > by those in the 11th hour. There should be a tracker bug updated soon. It looks like there's around 330 packages currently in this state. > 2) And it would be very good if there was a clearly stated mandate > from FESCO that gave proven-packagers expressed authority to deal with > this on a case by case basis once this becomes a ticking clock > situation. We already had such a suggestion, and I can't see why it would be any different this cycle. ;) If you are a provenpackager and wish to help out, please do work on adding unit files and converting packages that have not yet been converted. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
