[Fedora-packaging] Re: supporting closed source operating systems?

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 07:39:40AM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> and because having libvirt on Windows is a highly desirable outcome
>>> for us, we would be prepared to do the work either with maintainers,
>>> or ourselves, to maintain MinGW subpackages of these packages.  If at
>>> some point in the future we aren't able to continue that work, then as
>>> with any other Fedora package they would eventually be removed from
>>> Fedora by standard processes.
>>>
>>> The same would apply on a case-by-case basis to any other library.
>> I abhor case by case restrictions.. especially ones where we are
>> trying to judge whether or not a single person as the time to actually
>> maintain the package. We sure as hell don't do that for the rest of
>> the packaging space.  You have to do much better than "highly unlikely
>> due to time commitment".  I don't consider that a bright line at all.
>> I need something as a policy statement which we block on at the time
>> of package review.
> 
> On the contrary, this is exactly how Fedora packaging works right now.
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process
>   "A Contributor is defined as someone who wants to submit (and
>   maintain) a package in Fedora."
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/OrphanedPackages
>   "When Fedora maintainers do not want or are not able to maintain a
>   package any longer, they can orphan or retire the package."
> 
So are we talking subpackage or wholly new package for the mingw 
packages?  These policies assume wholly new packages.  I think that 
wholly new packages might be easier to manage in this respect.

>> And speaking of review... since you are doing this as a subpackage to
>> existing packages we don't even have a requirement that this sort of
>> thing goes through a peer review process because they aren't new
>> packages.
> 
> Well, with respect this is a problem with the Fedora process.  Coming
> myself from a Debian background, I was always very surprised by the
> fact that once a package is in Fedora, it's virtually a free-for-all
> as to how that package is maintained.  In Debian, things are quite
> different - large numbers of automated tests run continuously over
> existing packages, and any which don't conform to policy have an
> escalating scale of sanctions against them.
> 
> We can have a separate discussion about fixing the Fedora process.
> 
That would be very very nice.

>> What I still don't have an answer for is why does this need to be in
>> the main repo? Why can't we spin off a mingw compiled repo as a
>> separate addon repository inside our infrastructure?  And then the
>> minGW SIG can deal with library inclusions into that addon repo
>> however they want..with their own submission and review
>> policy..separate from the main repository policy.
> 
> Same could apply to, eg., Perl packages (no offence to perl
> maintainers :-).  It is much more useful if these packages are part of
> Fedora, rather than unnecessarily cordoned off in a separate
> infrastructure.
> 
This is a flase comparison, though.  Perl packages allow end-user perl 
programs to run on Fedora.  The proposals I see for mingw are aimed at 
allowing developers to work with building programs that will run on 
Windows.  This is a big difference in focus.

OTOH, do we want to open the door to people running mingw-compiled 
binaries under wine?  That seems like it might be a whole 'nother can of 
worms, though.

>> New packages go through a peer review step before we let them in.  At
>> a minimum mingw cross-compiled crap is going to need its own
>> submission review..which isn't going to happen if we allow this in as
>> subpackages because our existing review process doesn't extend to
>> subpackage creation.
> 
> With your use of phrases such as "mingw cross-compiled crap", I
> suggest you are not taking a level-headed approach to this.  This is
> entirely free software, just that maybe it's not being used for
> purposes which you approve of.  Fedora software is also used in the
> manufacture of tobacco products, cluster bombs and SUVs.
> 
Heh, from anyone else but Jef :-)

One question for you guys.  Have you touched base with the Embedded SIG 
guys?  (I saw Ralf replied to the packaging-list thread but nothing more 
official than that).  They're doing work on cross compilers and seem to 
have more similarity to your work than most of the other models I've 
seen brought up here.

Looking at their wiki page, I also see that they have a stub entry for 
mingw:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Embedded

-Toshio

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20080714/87226f4f/attachment.bin