On 23 February 2017 at 12:24, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 14:23, Neal Gompa wrote: > I have nothing against delivering latest and greatest software to our > users and this proposal is not against that goal, either. However, > package maintainers are not supposed to simply take what upstream > releases and pass it on to the users without considering the impact. I think that may be the differing of opinions in this discussion as I don't think there is a definitive answer. Some packagers believe that whatever upstream requires to get the software is what happens, other packagers believe that it isn't. Many packagers just want the XYZ package to be there so they can build the thing they really care about so if the upstream needed ten new dependencies.. we add 10 new dependencies. You may want to focus on this contention and see if there can be a consensus built around which way the project wants to go with it. Then work out the policies to meet whatever consensus is. Doing it backwards just leads to quibling because no one agrees with each other. > I'm not saying most of them do so. However, I encountered enough cases > when this was done without any documented justification that I think > it's necessary to mandate such justifications. Who knows how many cases > I didn't catch. This is doubly important in stable Fedora branches. > If this proposal makes maintainers think before updating something to > the latest and greatest in a stable branch with just a few months of > life left, then I consider that a very good thing. -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
