Am 26.02.2015 um 16:37 schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 02/26/2015 02:10 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:really? why? how do you come to that weird conclusion? surely, one can say "not my package, not my problem" but that's ignorant and needs no guidelines and policies - sanity should be enoughI guess you did not grasp I was referring to the ownership model of components in the distribution which are irrelevant to guidelines and policy's
i did
The fact is the distribution has been using the ownership model since it's interception which means one to one mapping from a component to an individual. As such the thought process of "I take care of what I own has" been breed into maintainers for the past ten years.
and i doubt that this is true in generalevery maintainer with responsiblity is or should be aware that his piece is *part of a distribution* because otherwise he could just build his package outside for his own
There have been several cases where the community has explode due to "lack of communications" as an result of that with the most notorious of those being the Gnome half of the Red Hat's desktop team where more often than not they have broken bits for other *DE's that have been sharing underlying components in the distribution. ( search this lists archives if you need proof of that )
and without the "ownership model" it would have been prevented what model would you use? you can't only say "that model is wrong" without any alternativehaving everybody mangle every package is also not a solution because you can't expect the needed knowledge for mangle around in a perl package from a java-user and so on
On top of that there are around 15k components in the distribution and expecting all maintainers to be able to keep tabs on all packager relations ( to their own or in general ) is ignant or expect them to does so for a single fedora-release rpm after the distribution has been split up again into core ( products ) and extra ( the inferior rest ) where the inevitale outcome is for those products eventually start shipping their own fedora release package... If the PLL had thought though these thing thoroughly through he would have realized that.
that's a completly different topic
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
