On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 01:39:14PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Fabio Valentini wrote: > > There's a difference between *claiming* LSB compliance (what you refer > > to as backwards compatibility ?) and actually *achieving* it. > > Claiming it (the thing we objected to) without achieving it (i.e. the > > status quo for many Fedora releases) is a lie that helps nobody. > > True, but the issue is that FESCo sees the bug in the claim and not in the > failure to achieve it, which is where the real issue lies. Attaining LSB compliance requires some interested persons to step up and volunteer their time to make it happen. FESCo doesn't have the ability to force people to work on features they're not interested in. So in the absence of any volunteers, the FESCo decision is the only outcome that was reasonably possible at this point in time. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
