On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 07:18:58PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > I am not going to file a feature for Fedora, to remove support for it > entirely across the whole distro. I still think dropping it is the right > thing to do, but I don't think it's a good use of my own time, to fight > this through... I'd be happy though if somebody else would pick this > up. Looking at the current FESCO members I am not entirely sure though > whether a proposal to disable libwrap would have a chance in the current > cycle though. (also, M. Miller kinda supported the proposal, which as > history tells us means he probably is _not_ going to vote for it in the > end...) I guess I wasn't clear enough with you last time around. I thought I was more clear this time, but I guess I'll repeat: demanding "instant progress or nothing" doesn't get you as far as breaking things down into manageable steps and executing on each one. Sometimes, we need to bite the bullet and make a big painful cut, but usually we don't. When it's something like this, (or like the default MTA, or like logging -- where there's no particular urgency to make the change and there are reasonable Fedora contributors with reservations, I'm absolutely in favor of phased approach. > It's a pity though that nobody in Fedora is actively working on getting > rid of legacy cruft. I really wished we had some people who oversee > deprecating things more proactively, figure out how to deprecate things, > write stub code to provide smooth transitions, write release notes and > so on. Being at the bleeding edge of things also means deciding that > some things really should go, from time to time... I absolutely agree. This should be an important fuction of the Base Design working group. Before that, we also have a "Minimal Core" SIG with some interest but not much activity (that last may somewhat be my fault, since I kicked it off but my attention wandered). > Besides deprecating > old cruft like libwrap, this would also mean removing all the old crap > from comps "standard" that we still install by default (894110)... https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894110 There wasn't previously a great framework for discussing this kind of thing. I hope that we do have that now. And just as you don't have to be a voting WG member to contribute to a product SIG, it would be helpful for anyone interested in this to provide constructive feedback to the Base Design group. -- Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
