I've very sorry if anyone was upset by fesco wanting to not allow the
new packages in while this was discussed. I'm the one who suggested
that, but as noted upthread, the idea was simply to allow time for
discussion before doing things.
There's actually a slightly similar case from long long ago to this one:
Fedora only allows one kernel package.
(
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-pac...
)
The discussion at the time from what I recall was that if anyone could
add custom kernels, it would vastly increase the support burden on the
main fedora kernel maintainers. People would report bugs to 'kernel' and
ask them about it even if the package was named differently.
If Adam's summary is understood by all the involved parties, then I
don't think there would be a problem allowing the packages in.
Everyone involved should just try and not place undue burdens on others.
If there's a flood of reports or issues that take away from real
requests to the kde sig, then perhaps things should be re-evaluated.
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 06:09:39PM +0000, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
I would suggest that it is entirely reasonable
that there be a threshold where if users
continually report bugs that the KDE SIG
must deal with (i.e. someone else's packages
are causing excessive overhead for the SIG,
even just to close/retarget the bugs/issues)
that they can petition that the offending
packages get suspended/removed. I don't
know what that threshold will be, but I
suspect the SIG will know it when they see
it. I would suggest that the packager of
those other packages monitors all new
bugs/issues and "takes" them early and
often to insure that the SIG is not unduly
burdened, and the threshold petition would
never need to be considered.
Yeah, I agree.
kevin