On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 14:20 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > I would agree with this assessment, and accordingly, I would like us to > vote to eliminate the jpp naming exception during tomorrows meeting. > Bring your flame-retardant underwear, but I would like to put this to > bed. While I'm not in the Fedora Packaging Committee anymore, I do have some history with this little bit of goo. I agree with spot and notting in that we've done our due dilligance to provide alternatives to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DeepakBhole/ReasonsForKeepingJPP and if jpackage doesn't like those, really that's on them to fix now. As far as Fedora users who may also be jpackage users there are more deterministic and reliable methods to achieve the technical goals listed above. At the end of the day that is who we have to service, the Fedora users. <notting> <snip> using repository priorities (via yum-priorities) solves the first three points on that page entirely. #4 is politics. #5 is a fragile metric, and really needs to be solved by developer<->developer conversation, rather than by package naming -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
