On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 01:14:30AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > It would be useful for that contributor to be able to say "I build these > > packages so I can ship the thing I'm invested in, but... user and other > > contributors, beware". > > > > Now, solving that isn't in the requirements modularity, but it *is* > > something that'd be nice to address, so if modularity happens to, cool. > > I disagree that this is a useful concept to enable or encourage. Fedora > should be about cooperation rather than walled gardens. If the packager is > uncomfortable with maintaining the package, they are welcome to ask for > comaintainers, especially if it turns out that there are more people > interested in the package. But taking the package private by default and > asking other interested people to either duplicate the packaging effort > (and cause conflicts, at least if the dependencies are also installed at > runtime) or explicitly coordinate a move of the package out of the module > (which will also cause trouble with the module upgrade path issues that > were already discussed) is just not a productive thing to do. I agree that making the "unloved" dependencies private in a way that discourages future cooperation and sharing is not good. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
