Haïkel wrote:
> Not that I'm 100% happy with the way it happened but this has been a
> very long-lived topic. To some, it'll be a hasty decision, to others,
> it's already a late one.
There's a REASON it had always been shot down so far!
> Please keep in mind, that Fesco is aware this is not a perfect
> solution, and we''ll gladly review any proposals to improve this
> policy.
It is not possible to "improve" a policy that is fundamentally broken. The
only possible improvement is to repeal/revert it.
> But we can keep discussing this for years, or try to solve this issue
> incrementally.
Or we can just keep saying no, in compliance with our principles.
> We chose the latter.
What is "incremental" about this policy change? It is a radical U-turn.
> No we didn't chose quantity over quality, it will only have a marginal
> impact on the former.
Then it will even have failed its stated purpose.
> It doesn't prevent you to do unbundling
It does. The maintainer can now say "no" to any non-upstream unbundling.
> Pretending that the now-previous guidelines that many packages
> (including recent ones) did not respect were preventing issues was
> giving a false impression of security, that was *harmful*.
If existing packages were not compliant to the policy, that's the problem
you need to fix, by:
1. fixing the packages (not just threatening their removal from Fedora, but
actually having a provenpackager go in and do the downstream unbundling),
and
2. for blatant or repeat offenses, unsponsoring both the submitters and the
reviewers of the offending packages.
> You're free to rant or work with us to improve the now-current policy.
See above, the policy cannot be "improved" because it is fundamentally
flawed and the exact opposite of what the policy should be.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
