make unmaintained ??

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/25/2015 06:10 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-10-25 at 19:53 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 01:07:47 +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 
>> wrote:
>>> I built 4.1 for rawhide. If that checks out to be OK, I can
>>> push an update for F23 also.
>> 
>> I do not understand why a major rebase could be permitted after
>> all the F-23 freezing stages?  It may cause FTBFSes or even
>> broken builds.  What is then all the release engineering good
>> for?  Why not to just run Rawhide then?
>> 
>> This situation may be a FAQ, sorry I do not read every mail here.
>> I did not want to be negative/discouraging, just I have seen such
>> FTBFS regression(s) in Fedora in the past.
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
> 
> Since we're frozen for Final at this point, non-blocker/FE updates 
> effectively have to respect the 'stable releases' policy, since
> they will only go out as updates for F23 Final. That states:
> 
> "As a result, we should avoid major updates of packages within a
> stable release.  Updates should aim to fix bugs, and not introduce
> features, particularly when those features would materially affect
> the user or developer experience."
> 
> "Package maintainers MUST:
> 
> Avoid Major version updates, ABI breakage or API changes if at all 
> possible. Avoid changing the user experience if at all possible. 
> Avoid updates that are trivial or don't affect any Fedora users."
> 
> There isn't any body tasked with policing this, exactly - no-one
> whose job it is to look at every package update and see if it meets
> the rules - but if you think an update is inappropriate you can
> post a comment and/or contact the package maintainer directly. If
> you try this and the maintainer does not agree there's a problem,
> and you're really concerned about it, you can escalate to the FPC,
> I believe.
> 

I'm of the opinion that a new minor release of GNU make is likely not
going to fit with the stable updates policy. I would be much happier
if that went to Rawhide only at this point. We wouldn't change
libtool, autoconf or gcc at this point, so I don't think it makes
sense to change make either.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlYuHnEACgkQeiVVYja6o6MDuACfSblsJJGjNj1cIILgzN6irLD3
7KsAoJUglKY7uQMR4vcFn5bOeHIbAbNP
=LXjU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----