On 11/08/2017 07:13 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 10:03:30AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek >> <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> We have such special protections for the kernel (signing), firefox (trademarks), >>> and for bootloaders (signing again), and some packages which don't consider >>> the fedora repo the canonical location for sources. >>> >> >> Hold the phone! When did we allow packages to not consider the Fedora >> Dist-Git the canonical location for sources? > > For fedora-release the idea is that "upsteam" has a copy of the spec > file, and the changes are supposed to be copied both ways. But I think > there's no disagreement with retiring "upstream", so this issue should > be moot soon (independently of the other stuff being discussed). Well, this thread has had posts from 1 of the 4 maintainers. I don't think it would be appropriate to change the package workflow without input from the others. IMHO, if the problem here is that preset requests aren't being processed quickly enough, I'd be happy to add at least you (and any others that showed over time they understand how presets work and can review PRs) to review, create and merge PRs and build and push updates. I don't know that anything else dramatic needs to happen here... kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
