On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:29:12AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > I like the idea of actually revisiting the list and deciding what to do, > > although pulling them out of the repository seems unnecessarily drastic. > This always winds up being the suggestion. Nobody actually does > anything about it. I'd only be supportive of this on two conditions: Well, I was looking through the list.... there are some important packages in here, including gcc, nss, samba, httpd, and a lot more. And tcp_wrappers. :) Many of these really deserve the attention. Others.... maybe not so much. tix? Pyrex? (Also I notice festival is in there -- that's partly package and based on long-ago work I did before the merge and I *know* it needs an update... *sigh*) > 1) Actual bugs impacting actual people as a result of an improper spec > file were present > 2) One of the bodies responsible for packages in Fedora (FESCo, FPC, > ?) agreed to conduct audits across all packages for guideline > adherence at regular intervals. > > I'd be willing to not require item 1 if item 2 were actually done. It > never has been, and if it had it would already suffice for the purpose > the merge review tickets would serve today. I don't think that we need to do it across *all* packages. I'd like to see it done initially for all packages that end up part of the base design. That's a more manageable chunk and will focus the effort where it will have the most benefit. > We have a lot of guidelines. Enough that it can be rather daunting to > a new packager to even start packaging something. What we have always > lacked is enforcement and accountability on those guidelines _after_ > something is in the distro. Fix that problem and everything else > relating to it will be solved. +1 -- 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
