On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 11:20:24AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > I must admit that I've forgotten what review procedure had been used > in 2005. Only have found this odd thread: > > RFE: dietlibc review > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-May/msg00683.html > > Who remembers the details? I remember a long thread http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-February/msg01720.html where Enrico showed numbers, understanding of the security issues, while counter arguments were integration and homogeneity. (And there was an uninteresting discussion on whether upstream is pro or against using dietlibc). I have left Fedora a long time ago, but I am quite sure that the Fedora way today is not following Enrico singular choices, even if they are backed by evidences, but going with homogeneity and ease to maintain, such as to lower the bar for maintainship as much as possible, and avoid relying on maintainer skill and knowledge of the packages. So, I am quite convinced that rereviewing Enrico packages is certainly the way to go to be sure that they are standard rather than innovative. -- Pat -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
