<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/14/2013 05:19 AM, Michael Stahnke
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMto7LLyiTAJamtEcri=M4=4sWx3WjS9AR7XCTAx0FPefpKhOw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Jan Zelený <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jzeleny@redhat.com"><jzeleny@redhat.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hello everyone,
as you might remember I issued a call for RFEs on this list during the spring.
The participation was not bad at all, we have collected so many data that it
took us several months to discuss and process it.
Now I have some results for you. Attached to this email you can find a strategy
document that a) outlines the strategy that we will commit to in the next 3-5
years and b) contains all the RFEs that were recognized as valid RFEs and were
accepted to be implemented as a part of our strategy.
Please note that the rest of the RFEs from the discussion was also evaluated
but most likely rejected. If your RFE is not on the list, you can drop me an
email and I'll tell you more specific reasons why we decided not to put it on
the list.
If you have any other questions, comments or notes regarding the document,
feel free to to use this list for the discussion.
Thanks
Jan
PS: I'll be AFK for the weekend so I'll comment on your replies on Monday
--
devel mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org">devel@lists.fedoraproject.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</a>
Fedora Code of Conduct: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct">http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
First off, thanks for this. I'm glad some people are really trying to
look at the path forward. I'm also sorry I missed your RFE then.
High traffic-lists sometimes get skipped over :(
I like the goals of the paper. My main concerns is this addresses
technical issues that are already in play. It doesn't address several
items that are not technical issues which IMHO, is the main reason RPM
isn't used for everything.
Developers don't do deployments with RPM...at least not inside Fedora.
Anything sane is actually against Packaging Guidelines. So that
becomes a problem, and developers skip it. If developers (or
operations people) are savvy enough to make RPMs, they are used once
and not shared because they wouldn't get accepted into Fedora/EPEL.
Also, sometimes developers/deployments need multiple versions of
things installed.
Is there a an effort that complements this one on the policy/non-technical side?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
FESCO recently approved SCL which was a bit odd since Tom had
explicetly put a big fat warning [1] that reads<br>
<br>
<b>"Not approved for Fedora Packages</b><br>
Please note that official Fedora packages <b>must not</b> be
configured as Software Collection packages. Fedora does not permit
relocatable packages, packages using hierarchies that conflict or
violate the FHS, or packages storing files in /opt. This
documentation is <b>NOT</b> part of the Fedora Packaging
Guidelines, and is only here should you wish to generate unofficial
Software Collections against Fedora in a third-party repository."<br>
<br>
as opposed to be pushing things forward by only approving the
application stack being installed in an isolate container. ( which
needs to be solved anyone on the not to distant future )<br>
<br>
I do believe the SCL is what you are looking for...<br>
<br>
1. <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=SoftwareCollections">https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=SoftwareCollections</a>
</body>
</html>