On 2012-11-05 12:22, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 07:52 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> A crit path update that affects, say, two packages and nothing else,
>> could be "approved by default" as well. Many of the crit path
>> features however affect a large or extremely large package set (e.g.
>> the sysv->systemd script migration), in which case explicitly
>> involving every maintainer as the feature owner before even proposing
>> the feature wouldn't scale; that's where FESCo does need to step in as
>> a more efficient way to represent the large group of packagers.
>
> Case in point for F18 [1] and perfect example of one thing that should
> have been completed within one release cycle...
>
> JBG
>
>
>
1.http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PackagePresets
As that feature is about changing distribution-wide policy, I cannot
act on it until said policy is written. (See
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/945) The feature's owners do
not appear to be interested in doing so. If you are, I would greatly
appreciate it if you would add a proposal to that FESCo ticket so I
can have a clear path forward.
Well I guess we probably should follow what other distributions most
notably opensuse I suppose since they switched to using preset a while
back but I'm not finding any clause about packages preset files
themselves [1] so I'm not sure how they handled it unless they just have
stricter rules that everything should be defaulted to off which can be
seen by the default preset policy for opensuse [2] compared to our
bloated one [3].
Issues like these are perfect example for something that should have
been resolved *before* the feature was accepted by FESCO...
JBG