Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "SS" == Simo Sorce
> <ssorce(a)redhat.com&gt; writes: 
SS> I have the impression (which may be totally wrong) that you are
SS> taking the binary approach here: either we care maximally or we do
SS> not care at all.

I sure hope that's not the tack I'm taking.

SS> It seem to me Stephen is making a proposal to tweak just one
SS> specific aspect of packaging rule, that is a softer enforcement
SS> model. FPC still has a truckload other good rules about packaging
SS> and nobody believes FPC should stop caring about overall package
SS> quality.

Indeed, that sums up Stephen's proposal.  Others (and specifically, the
message to which I was responding) sort of pushed the realm a bit
farther than just relaxing one rule.  Indeed, it was pushed out to the
idea that "good packaging" should be subservient to "features" and
"first".  Which it very may well be; that's not FPC's decision.  When
FPC is tasked to set out guidelines to enforce "good packaging", that's
what it does.  It's somewhat of a blunt instrument, because that's what
it has been asked to be.

I don't happen to agree with Stephen's proposal, but I do agree that at
the very least FPC needs to tighten up the language surrounding the
exception process.  Personally I would like to relax the rules as well,
but that's just my opinion and I haven't really fleshed it out to the
point that I could articulate anything reasonably.

Anyway, what I don't get is why we're to the point of tossing out the
primary anti-bundling rule when FESCo has always had the power to
override any FPC decision.  So FPC says "this isn't good packaging" and
FESCo can say "we understand, but quality packaging here is subservient
to the distro's mission".  That's always been the case, even when the
"E" stood for "Extras", and I suspect it would have worked just fine
for
this situation.  Instead we're here debating whether FPC should be in
the business of reviewing bundling issues at all.

 - J<

[Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 02:41:13PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>  Anyway, what I don't get is why we're to the point of tossing
> out the
>  primary anti-bundling rule when FESCo has always had the power to
>  override any FPC decision.  So FPC says "this isn't good packaging" and
>  FESCo can say "we understand, but quality packaging here is subservient
>  to the distro's mission".  That's always been the case, even when the
>  "E" stood for "Extras", and I suspect it would have worked just fine
> for
>  this situation.  Instead we're here debating whether FPC should be in
>  the business of reviewing bundling issues at all. 
I think it's because overriding a different group seems hostile, even
if it isn't meant that way. And FESCo doesn't want to feel like they're
second-guessing other groups all the time. But, if FESCo and FPC want
to (more, I guess) explicitly spell out that FPC takes a purist
approach and that it's FESCo's place to make exceptions when they serve
greater Fedora goals, maybe that could work?


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

[Paul W. Frields]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 03:50:27PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 02:41:13PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III
> wrote:
>  > Anyway, what I don't get is why we're to the point of tossing out the
>  > primary anti-bundling rule when FESCo has always had the power to
>  > override any FPC decision.  So FPC says "this isn't good packaging"
> and
>  > FESCo can say "we understand, but quality packaging here is subservient
>  > to the distro's mission".  That's always been the case, even when the
>  > "E" stood for "Extras", and I suspect it would have worked just
> fine for
>  > this situation.  Instead we're here debating whether FPC should be in
>  > the business of reviewing bundling issues at all.
>  
>  I think it's because overriding a different group seems hostile, even
>  if it isn't meant that way. And FESCo doesn't want to feel like they're
>  second-guessing other groups all the time. But, if FESCo and FPC want
>  to (more, I guess) explicitly spell out that FPC takes a purist
>  approach and that it's FESCo's place to make exceptions when they serve
>  greater Fedora goals, maybe that could work? 
While that doesn't seem hostile, it seems just as unsustainable.
Setting a better baseline expectation for bundling makes more sense.


-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
    The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com

[Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "MM" == Matthew Miller
> <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; writes: 
MM> I think it's because overriding a different group seems hostile,
MM> even if it isn't meant that way. And FESCo doesn't want to feel like
MM> they're second-guessing other groups all the time.

Well, FPC even has a "bounce to FESCo clause" in the rules we follow.
Every decision used to go through FESCo, but the latter decided it was a
bit too much overhead.  I don't really blame them.

In any case, the FESCo/FPC interaction (which I know predates the
involvement of many people) was designed with this check in mind.  It
isn't hostile (though I'm sure some will see it that way no matter what
happens).

MM> But, if FESCo and FPC want to (more, I guess) explicitly spell out
MM> that FPC takes a purist approach and that it's FESCo's place to make
MM> exceptions when they serve greater Fedora goals, maybe that could
MM> work?

That's how it started and how at least FPC has pretty much always
operated.  Of course, FPC does understand that you can't do everything
and does grant exemptions when they make sense to FPC.  It's just that
what makes sense to FPC (or at least, whatever consensus arises out of
FPC discussion) might not make sense to FESCo or to the folks who just
want something without worrying about FPC's restrictions.

 - J<