On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 07:16, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> On 02/23/2017 02:23 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: >> > On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 00:08, Adam Williamson wrote: >> > > On Wed, 2017-02-22 at 22:53 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski >> > > wrote: >> > > > Dear Fedora developers, >> > > > there have been a number of examples where an update in a stable branch >> > > > brought in new dependencies and in significant numbers. The most recent >> > > > case was discussed on this list even today: >> > > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/BVUZWJYW2UVO53EZ2G2ALAQPU5PLDJZR/ >> > > >> > > That discussion was about Rawhide. Not about a stable release. >> > >> > True, but the issue is the same. New or changed dependencies cause >> > problems. >> >> Not quite. This only applies to "weak deps". > > How so? > >> New "strong deps" or "changed deps" are should to solve problems, otherwise >> there would not be any need for changes. > > "are should to"? Sorry, I can't understand the above sentence. > >> > The proposed policy change talks about both rawhide and stable branches. >> I consider your proposal to be unnecessary. > > Could you elaborate on why you think it's unnecessary? > This proposal is rather burdensome with no particular gain. Firstly, this proposal assumes we work in a vacuum, which we don't. Most of the important packages are maintained by teams or SIGs/WGs. They often are also involved in the upstream development in some fashion and are already aware of changes anyway and can handle dealing with the changes. Secondly, with the exception of a few packages, largely relating to the installer stack; the security stack; and the system startup packages, the addition and removal of dependencies generally does not matter. And in the cases where it does, all the stakeholders are *already* involved and working on it together. Thirdly, there's no particular problem you're trying to solve, and forcing people to do this means that people are going to be more anxious and less willing to actually update software, which is counter to our goal to provide the latest and greatest software to our users. Frankly, the only reason this is even a problem at all is because we have the split between packager and provenpackager. As far as I am aware, every team or SIG/WG has at least one or two provenpackagers, so this is usually not a problem. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
