On Sun, 2006-04-23 at 01:54 -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote: > On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 13:47 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > In the meantime, the Packaging Guidelines should be updated to clarify > > when use of fedora-usermngt is warranted. I realize there's some > > controversy involved, so should FESCO get involved to officially > > bless/veto the use of fedora-usermngt? > > Yes please. Well, though I'd appreciate a decision to remove fedora-usermngt, I don't think such a decision would be helpful, because this isn't a political issue to draw an arbitrary decision or to vote on, but a controversial technical issue. One party wants to make fedora-usermgnt mandatory, the other party considers it script-kiddy crap". I am a member of the latter party and would consider FESCO drawing a decision "pro fedora-usermgnt" as a severe project leadership fault and them abusing their "management powers" to overrule technical expertise. > It seems absolutely insane to me to not have a set policy on > something as important as this. Either we use fedora-usermgmt in all > packages, or not at all. (Personally my vote's for merging the > fedora-usermgmt functionality into adduser itself, as Jef recommended > IIRC.) This is completely different (and less controversial) topic. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
