Meeting minutes - today's Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2013-11-19)

[Petr Kovar]

Hi all,

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:15:44 +0100
Honza Horak <hhorak at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 11/22/2013 05:25 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 04:52:33PM +0100, Honza Horak wrote:
> >> On 11/19/2013 06:46 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> >>>    * ACTION: everyone to send one general thing they want the WG to
> >>>      enable and one specific thing they'd personally want to work on to
> >>>      the mailing list this week  (abadger1999, 17:37:44)
> >>
> >> So for me I'd like to see our WG to revisit Packaging guidelines and
> >> properly differentiate between MUST requirements and
> >> SHOULD/NICE_TO_HAVE practices. After then, we could come up with a
> >> tool/process/something to enforce to use it.
> >>
> > This would be an anti-goal of mine for this WG.  What we've found in the FPC
> > is that packagers want to have MUSTs.  Nearly everytime we've made Should
> > requirements packagers start screaming at each other about who's doing it
> > right with one side saying "The packaging guidelines say you should do it
> > this way" and the other half saying "The packaging guidelines don't tell me
> > I must do it that way".
> 
> I had to express myself un-clearly, because what you're saying is very 
> similar to what I meant. Having the guidelines simple and un-ambigous 
> with clear MUST statements was the goal I'd like to achieve. The rest 
> not-MUSTs could be removed from guidelines entirely and grouped them 
> under "best practices" section for example.

I would like to see these best practices covered in our Fedora formal
documentation, hosted on docs.fedoraproject.org. Currently, there are
different HOWTOs and guides on the Fedora wiki, some of them are outdated,
some are not, so instead having a single guide that would merge content from
those wiki documents is something I would like to focus on.

> > Additionally, just to be clear, re-organizing the packaging guidelines would
> > be a welcome thing to do in conjunction with the Packaging Committee.  But
> > I would be very much against us going outside of the currently normal
> > process of proposing a draft, let the packaging committee approve or reject
> > the change.
> 
> Right, that seems reasonably.

Sure, working with the Packaging Committee on any reorganization effort is
very important.

Cheers,
Petr Kovar