|
On 10/14/2013 05:19 AM, Michael Stahnke
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Jan Zelený <jzeleny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hello everyone, as you might remember I issued a call for RFEs on this list during the spring. The participation was not bad at all, we have collected so many data that it took us several months to discuss and process it. Now I have some results for you. Attached to this email you can find a strategy document that a) outlines the strategy that we will commit to in the next 3-5 years and b) contains all the RFEs that were recognized as valid RFEs and were accepted to be implemented as a part of our strategy. Please note that the rest of the RFEs from the discussion was also evaluated but most likely rejected. If your RFE is not on the list, you can drop me an email and I'll tell you more specific reasons why we decided not to put it on the list. If you have any other questions, comments or notes regarding the document, feel free to to use this list for the discussion. Thanks Jan PS: I'll be AFK for the weekend so I'll comment on your replies on Monday -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conductFirst off, thanks for this. I'm glad some people are really trying to look at the path forward. I'm also sorry I missed your RFE then. High traffic-lists sometimes get skipped over :( I like the goals of the paper. My main concerns is this addresses technical issues that are already in play. It doesn't address several items that are not technical issues which IMHO, is the main reason RPM isn't used for everything. Developers don't do deployments with RPM...at least not inside Fedora. Anything sane is actually against Packaging Guidelines. So that becomes a problem, and developers skip it. If developers (or operations people) are savvy enough to make RPMs, they are used once and not shared because they wouldn't get accepted into Fedora/EPEL. Also, sometimes developers/deployments need multiple versions of things installed. Is there a an effort that complements this one on the policy/non-technical side? FESCO recently approved SCL which was a bit odd since Tom had explicetly put a big fat warning [1] that reads "Not approved for Fedora Packages Please note that official Fedora packages must not be configured as Software Collection packages. Fedora does not permit relocatable packages, packages using hierarchies that conflict or violate the FHS, or packages storing files in /opt. This documentation is NOT part of the Fedora Packaging Guidelines, and is only here should you wish to generate unofficial Software Collections against Fedora in a third-party repository." as opposed to be pushing things forward by only approving the application stack being installed in an isolate container. ( which needs to be solved anyone on the not to distant future ) I do believe the SCL is what you are looking for... 1. https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=SoftwareCollections |
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
