On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 8:07 AM Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 12:47:44PM +0000, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > Link to the FESCo ticket: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3165 > > > > and I'm very upset > > Assume best intent first of all. An injunction is a temporary thing > to allow some space for a decision to be made. > > (I added my personal opinion to the ticket itself) > First of all, thank you for assuming best intent. I'll apologize first for the terseness of those messages; I was in a rush between meetings and I left out basically all of the context (and probably used a stronger word -- injunction -- than was strictly called for). I'm sorry for that. Next, I'll address Kevin's comment that the "injunction" lacked a quorum vote to enforce: you are correct. That's the whole reason for it: the issue came up at the end of an already-long FESCo meeting and we did not have time to discuss it in the detail it deserves. The intent was not to make a ruling (which was impossible without quorum), but to instead indicate that the package review should refrain from landing until FESCo makes a determination of its suitability and alignment with Fedora's goals. This is as much for the packagers involved as anyone; we don't want you to be putting in effort that FESCo might ultimately require you to revert if the decision goes that way. Again, I apologize for not doing a better job communicating that yesterday. Now, as for my personal stance on the issue upon a night's reflection (some of this is in reply to comments on https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3165 that I feel should be discussed in a more public forum): 1) I agree that if a Fedora packager wants to maintain a package, then that package should not be excluded from Fedora except under very exceptional cases. 2) FESCo is ultimately the arbiter of what software comprises "Fedora Linux" as made available to the rest of the world. In practice, this mostly means the install/Live media contents as well as container and VM images that are released as official Fedora deliverables. 3) Fedora has a long-standing and well-communicated stance that we are a Wayland distribution first and foremost and that X11 support is intended as a migration-support tool rather than a first-class citizen. 4) There was a comment on the FESCo ticket to the effect of '"you must move to Wayland because no one maintains X11!". Here are some people who are maintaining X11 packages, so let them do their thing.' This is misleading, as the move to Wayland is specifically because the upstream of X11 *itself* is largely unmaintained. These packages are not maintaining X11, they are adding new dependencies on it. My proposal for consideration is this: "FESCo will allow these packages in the main Fedora repositories, however they may not be included by default on any release-blocking deliverable (ISO, image, etc.)" -- _______________________________________________ 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
