On Wednesday 11 April 2007 15:09:10 Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Should FESCo be the deciding body here? I would like to have a team of > people look at decisions rather than a single person so that we have a > chance of a debate and different outlooks. For lack of a better body, sure. I'd like to see SIGs really decide what goes into their comps group as mandatory/default/optional, and the release team + FESCo would only have to get involved if there is a dispute about what they're trying to do. Of course that would mean defining the stake holders for the various groups within comps, but that's somewhat needed anyway. > > I have a suggestion for a package to be installed by default that I > > > >> would like to see someone or a team take ownership and give me a > >> decisive response. > > > > Given that both the bugs you referenced are still in NEW state, I find it > > unlikely that we'd be adding this package to the default list in comps. > > Perhaps you haven't gotten any responses because the bugs that should be > > fixed for its inclusion are not fixed yet. > > Actually I did get positive responses from the maintainer, upstream > developer and others. The enhancements are "nice to have" but the > package is still very functional in its current state. "We have two bugs open against pam_keyring now both of which are very important to fix if we need to put this in by default." Sounds to me like we should get those fixed first. Maybe I'm misreading... -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgpEL7J82S85u.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
