Software management: Call for RFEs results!

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

On 10/14/2013 05:19 AM, Michael Stahnke wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Jan Zelený <jzeleny at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>> as you might remember I issued a call for RFEs on this list during the spring.
>> The participation was not bad at all, we have collected so many data that it
>> took us several months to discuss and process it.
>>
>> Now I have some results for you. Attached to this email you can find a strategy
>> document that a) outlines the strategy that we will commit to in the next 3-5
>> years and b) contains all the RFEs that were recognized as valid RFEs and were
>> accepted to be implemented as a part of our strategy.
>>
>> Please note that the rest of the RFEs from the discussion was also evaluated
>> but most likely rejected. If your RFE is not on the list, you can drop me an
>> email and I'll tell you more specific reasons why we decided not to put it on
>> the list.
>>
>> If you have any other questions, comments or notes regarding the document,
>> feel free to to use this list for the discussion.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Jan
>>
>> PS: I'll be AFK for the weekend so I'll comment on your replies on Monday
>> --
>> devel mailing list
>> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
> First off, thanks for this. I'm glad some people are really trying to
> look at the path forward.   I'm also sorry I missed your RFE then.
> High traffic-lists sometimes get skipped over :(
>
>
> I like the goals of the paper. My main concerns is this addresses
> technical issues that are already in play.  It doesn't address several
> items that are not technical issues which IMHO, is the main reason RPM
> isn't used for everything.
>
> Developers don't do deployments with RPM...at least not inside Fedora.
> Anything sane is actually against Packaging Guidelines. So that
> becomes a problem, and developers skip it. If  developers (or
> operations people) are savvy enough to make RPMs, they are used once
> and not shared because they wouldn't get accepted into Fedora/EPEL.
>
> Also, sometimes developers/deployments need multiple versions of
> things installed.
>
> Is there a an effort that complements this one on the policy/non-technical side?

FESCO recently approved SCL which was a bit odd since Tom had explicetly 
put a big fat warning [1] that reads

*"Not approved for Fedora Packages*
Please note that official Fedora packages *must not* be configured as 
Software Collection packages. Fedora does not permit relocatable 
packages, packages using hierarchies that conflict or violate the FHS, 
or packages storing files in /opt. This documentation is *NOT* part of 
the Fedora Packaging Guidelines, and is only here should you wish to 
generate unofficial Software Collections against Fedora in a third-party 
repository."

as opposed to be pushing things forward by only approving the 
application stack being installed in an isolate container. ( which needs 
to be solved anyone on the not to distant future )

I do believe the SCL is what you are looking for...

1. https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=SoftwareCollections
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20131014/47904f55/attachment.html>