On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 01:38:18PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 7/7/21 1:08 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Neal Gompa:
>
>> Wait, why don't we have guile 3.0?
>
> We have a mandate from Fesco that the core toolchain must depend on
> Guile. Naturally that makes updates rather difficult.
So I've gone and checked the Fesco issue where dropping guile
support from make + gdb was discussed:
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2558
I'm especially shocked about how Fesco is in essence mandating
a group of maintainers to spend time maintaining a feature
where they clearly have indicated they don't want to maintain
that feature.
[snip]
I urge Fesco to reconsider this and I suggest that we
(Fedora) take another serious look at implementing:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RemoveGuileFromToolchain
for Fedora 35.
What's notable to me is that, generally speaking, maintainers use
their own discretion as to which optional features they enable
or disable with a package built in Fedora. I'd expect that in most
cases similar to this a maintainer will just disable the feature,
do a koji build, and never tell anyone, nor ask for permission.
Package maintainers do this all the time, even dropping builds
for entire architectures without telling anyone beforehand even
though there are users / dependant packages.
In this case the maintainers are effectively being penalized for
trying to proactively alert users to a change, that probably
doesn't impact many/any users in the first place.
This serves to discourage other maintainers from even making a
feature change page in future, lest they be rejected. The safer
course of action is to just silently disable the feature, and
then ask for forgiveness later in the unlikely event anyone
complains.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|