F21 System Wide Change: Headless Java
a.badger at gmail.com
Thu Nov 21 15:07:21 UTC 2013
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:06:44AM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 20/11/13 20:23, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:13:02PM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> >>We were speaking about giving more power to SIGs related to
> >>discussion about Fedora.next. This can be a good start. Stano and
> >>Aleksandar are working on Java maintenance a lot, Java SIG members
> >>are speaking together, so I have a confidence in their actions.
> >This is a tangent but -- some people have been talking about giving more
> >power to SIGs but at the last env and stacks meeting we sorta settled on
> >more power to SIGs in an experimental, anything-goes repo. We're not
> >tlaking about that here.
> For now. I would be for more power to SIGs, because who does the work
> has the responsibility. I don't think people outside Java word can
> decide how it should be done.
If we're talking about the same powers (I'm talking about Packaging Guideline
approval) then I would be against giving that to SIGs for the same reasons
I gave in the Env and Stacks Meeting. Importance of precedence, importance
of big picture view of how it fits into Fedora and its policies. SIGs come
up with what's expedient for them to package but that's not always the thing
that is going to make it easy for other packagers to get involved, end users
to use their packages, or advance Fedora's goals.
> I still don't see any reason, why should be Change proposal done
> differently. Could you sum it up in few points?
Not here, I'll continue to do that in the other part of the thread to not
get this tangent involved in it :-)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the devel