On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko <kloczko.tomasz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 7 June 2018 at 03:17, Jan Kurik <jkurik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [..] >> >> [2.1] Justin Forbes: >> >> https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/fesco-election-interview-justin-forbes-jforbes/ >> [2.2] Stephen Gallagher: >> >> https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/fesco-election-interview-stephen-gallagher-sgallagh/ >> [2.3] Till Maas: >> >> https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/fesco-election-interview-till-maas-till/ >> [2.4] Randy Barlow: >> >> https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/fesco-election-interview-randy-barlow-bowlofeggs/ >> [2.5] Petr Šabata: >> >> https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/fesco-election-interview-petr-sabata-psabata-contyk/ > > > 3 out of 5 candidates as most important feature which seems they want to > push forward encircles Modularity. > Doesn't matter that rpm never been designed in mind to handle cohabitation > packages in different variants. > What now Modularity offers is +1.5y behind original schedule and still in > most of the cases it does not work. > No one points on things like discussion on: > - common specs coding style > - cutting number of %iffings (and use instead SCM branches which git offers) > - cutting legacy tails like still using tons of scriptlets which can be > easily cleaned of remove dependencies on initscripts and maaany more like > this which could make at least @core solid fundamentals other features > - cutting number of dependencies (how many years ago was first discussion > about use --as-needed in linker options?) > - caring about quite basic security (look decision about add ~/.local/bin to > the $PATH and complete kind of "desinteressement" about remove > /usr/local/{bin,sbin} from already used $PATH which widely opens hell gates > for malwares). > No one has said modularity is the *only* issue, but it is a big change that Fedora is embracing. It is important that such a large scale change is handled in such a manner that existing users aren't left on the sidelines. Candidates were given only 3 questions, and 10 page answers are pointless, people don't read them. Security has always been a concern for Fedora, and that is not changing. There are several of us who start and end our day looking at CVE lists making sure Fedora is as protected as possible. We have implemented and continued to champion things like SE Linux and secure boot upstream. Sure, they might not start out as elegant as we would like, but they are constantly improved. Compiler flags are changed to support more secure features as they are introduced, and I expect to see work around IMA and other security initiatives going forward. Security is not a big new initiative for Fedora, it has been an important cornerstone for years. FESCo doesn't exist for members to do what they want, it is a service position, FESCo exists to serve the community. If you think FESCo should be addressing some issues differently, file a ticket, file a change request. A lot of the things mentioned here don't fall into the FESCo realm though, and would be best handled by the packaging committee. > Second most important goal on which candidates are focused is how internal > Fedora infrastructure works. > > No one of the candidates seems is aware that people are leaving Fedora boat > (look on distrowatch.com or > https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/os-linux/all/all and few other > similars stats) not because Modularity still doesn't work (and will never > work as no one will not change some fundamental bits in rpm). Most of the > candidates seems are completely unaware that end users of they work (binary > packages) simple don't care about how all Fedora stuff is build but HOW IT > WORKS. > There is less attrition than these sites mentioned show. There was a large decline in users after the Gnome 3 switch, and things have been getting better since. It would be nice of those metrics were more readily available and not just occasionally pulled out when an issue arises and someone thinks to ask. There used to be a page. And the Fedora model is less suited to the web server space than some others because of how quickly we move. I would expect there are several Fedora users who are hosting sites on centos just because they don't have to upgrade it yearly. And yes, there is a lot of concern with how it works. things like CI and some of the infrastructure improvements have a lot more impact on insuring that better quality packages land in the hands of users. That is their entire purpose. It takes time and infrastructure to get those initiatives up and running, but the only reason those initiatives exist is to get better quality, functional packages into the hands of users. > On top of this more and more decisions in Fedora seems are made in less and > less transparent and well technically justified way. > > Personally I don't see any GoodEnough(tm) candidate on which I can vote .. > candidate with descent own expertise of what is now Fedora Achilles heel .. > sad :( > > kloczek > -- > Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/NAYDBONKLTQWVUE6BZHOGYJFGYWXPCAH/ > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/F3CL56AVPKQWN54DRFXHHZK6SNNHJW7P/
