On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Przemek Klosowski <przemek.klosowski@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > That reminds me that you were talking to the glibc upstream about their > sometimes cavalier attitude to significant changes. How did that go? Did you > get a sense that they understood where we're coming from? My discussion with the glibc maintainers was purely a technical one -- centered specifically around the practices and procedures of doing development in rawhide and not making invasive changes on released branches. As a result of my conversations, we now have a new glibc package maintainer in Fedora (Jeff Law), who sees eye-to-eye with me on the need to not make invasive changes in packages on released branches. I consider that a very good thing, and we've already started to see the benefits of not re-syncing glibc with upstream head every time we push out a new package. The "doing development in rawhide" piece hasn't fully come about yet, but I'll be continuing my discussions around that piece of the puzzle. But to go back to the heart of your question -- my discussions with upstream did *not* center on attitudes. It focused on best practices for effective and efficient development. And in that regard, I think we've got as strong of a trust relationship between Fedora and the glibc packager as I've seen in a long time. -- Jared Smith Fedora Project Leader -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
