On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Michael Catanzaro <mike.catanzaro@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Chris Adams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On what grounds? There is nothing in the Fedora guidelines that makes >> package maintainers beholden to third-party (by definition, not part of >> Fedora) repos. There's nothing for FESCo to vote on, unless you are >> going to propose that change. > > > OK, I'll bite. The grounds are that FESCo has granted the WG full control > over the Workstation product, and the kernel package is part of that > product. Although I can't speak for the entire WG today, I would be fairly > astounded if the WG were to choose to allow kernel updates to break Negativo > users after having identified Negativo as a strategic priority and > advertised it as supported. So if a kernel update goes out that breaks > Negativo users, I would expect a policy to delay future kernel upgrades > until Negativo has been tested and confirmed to be working. Since that would > be controversial, someone would surely appeal to FESCo. Probably easier for > everyone to take it straight to FESCo, right? > > But again, if there is already a technical solution (a fallback to noveau) > in place and working, as I suspect (would be really nice if somebody could > confirm that!) then it doesn't matter. The agreement when the whole Negativo strategy started was that a technical fallback would be in place. If it is not ready, you can't blame the kernel. But sure, let's take it to FESCo, that will be a fun meeting. I am chairing next week, and would be happy to put it on the agenda. Justin _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
