On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:50:27PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 02:41:13PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > Anyway, what I don't get is why we're to the point of tossing out the > > primary anti-bundling rule when FESCo has always had the power to > > override any FPC decision. So FPC says "this isn't good packaging" and > > FESCo can say "we understand, but quality packaging here is subservient > > to the distro's mission". That's always been the case, even when the > > "E" stood for "Extras", and I suspect it would have worked just fine for > > this situation. Instead we're here debating whether FPC should be in > > the business of reviewing bundling issues at all. > > I think it's because overriding a different group seems hostile, even > if it isn't meant that way. And FESCo doesn't want to feel like they're > second-guessing other groups all the time. But, if FESCo and FPC want > to (more, I guess) explicitly spell out that FPC takes a purist > approach and that it's FESCo's place to make exceptions when they serve > greater Fedora goals, maybe that could work? While that doesn't seem hostile, it seems just as unsustainable. Setting a better baseline expectation for bundling makes more sense. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
