nss_db

[Jared K. Smith]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Przemek Klosowski
<przemek.klosowski at nist.gov> wrote:
> That reminds me that you were talking to the glibc upstream about their
> sometimes cavalier attitude to significant changes. How did that go? Did you
> get a sense that they understood where we're coming from?

My discussion with the glibc maintainers was purely a technical one --
centered specifically around the practices and procedures of doing
development in rawhide and not making invasive changes on released
branches.  As a result of my conversations, we now have a new glibc
package maintainer in Fedora (Jeff Law), who sees eye-to-eye with me
on the need to not make invasive changes in packages on released
branches.  I consider that a very good thing, and we've already
started to see the benefits of not re-syncing glibc with upstream head
every time we push out a new package.  The "doing development in
rawhide" piece hasn't fully come about yet, but I'll be continuing my
discussions around that piece of the puzzle.

But to go back to the heart of your question -- my discussions with
upstream did *not* center on attitudes.  It focused on best practices
for effective and efficient development. And in that regard, I think
we've got as strong of a trust relationship between Fedora and the
glibc packager as I've seen in a long time.

--
Jared Smith
Fedora Project Leader