On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Michael Catanzaro
<mike.catanzaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Chris Adams
<linux(a)cmadams.net> wrote:
>
> On what grounds? There is nothing in the Fedora guidelines that makes
> package maintainers beholden to third-party (by definition, not part of
> Fedora) repos. There's nothing for FESCo to vote on, unless you are
> going to propose that change.
OK, I'll bite. The grounds are that FESCo has granted the WG full control
over the Workstation product, and the kernel package is part of that
product. Although I can't speak for the entire WG today, I would be fairly
astounded if the WG were to choose to allow kernel updates to break Negativo
users after having identified Negativo as a strategic priority and
advertised it as supported. So if a kernel update goes out that breaks
Negativo users, I would expect a policy to delay future kernel upgrades
until Negativo has been tested and confirmed to be working. Since that would
be controversial, someone would surely appeal to FESCo. Probably easier for
everyone to take it straight to FESCo, right?
But again, if there is already a technical solution (a fallback to noveau)
in place and working, as I suspect (would be really nice if somebody could
confirm that!) then it doesn't matter.
The agreement when the whole Negativo strategy started was that a
technical fallback would be in place. If it is not ready, you can't
blame the kernel. But sure, let's take it to FESCo, that will be a fun
meeting. I am chairing next week, and would be happy to put it on the
agenda.
Justin