El vie, 22-09-2017 a las 15:25 -0500, Michael Catanzaro escribió:
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.
Michael
Just catching up on email, There is no such thing as a WG post GA, we
ship and support a single stream of updates for all products, editions
and spins. The only way that the WG could stop or control any update
for a package not owned by the WG is to provide enough negative karma
to an update in Bodhi to force it to not be ppushable. I would really
hope that people would not do that to keep updates out, and would
instead have a open honest discussion to try figure out a acceptable
path forward. Any change to how we do updates would require
significant changes in many parts of how we manage the ditro and update
process. It would need discussions with Release Engineering and
Infrastructre, that came with resources to support the work.
Dennis