Need approval on making the critical path packages proposal: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_Path_Packages_Proposal and http://skvidal.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/critical-path-packages/
a reality for packagers.
It'll mean certain package maintainers will have to do more if they want to put an update in place.
This one really needs to be discussed on the mailing list before being rushed to a meeting: * Is the added bureaucracy wanted at all? IMHO it is completely unneeded. * Is the package list correct? For example, Nicolas Mailhot objected to bitmap-fonts being on the list in the blog comments. * Does this also affect Rawhide? Some people on the mailing lists appear to be under the impression it does or should, but the proposal appears to say it doesn't (outside of freeze periods).
The list is also GNOME-centric, but the consensus at the KDE SIG meeting was that KDE SIG does not want their packages added, so I won't object based on this alone. But I'm doubtful about the bureaucracy being helpful at all.
Replying to [comment:2 kkofler]:
This one really needs to be discussed on the mailing list before being rushed to a meeting: * Is the added bureaucracy wanted at all? IMHO it is completely unneeded.
The entire FAD agreed we need to add more rigor to updating critical pkgs.
Is the package list correct? For example, Nicolas Mailhot objected to bitmap-fonts being on the list in the blog comments.
The package list is given to change. The specific pkgs on the list is less important than the proposal that certain packages need to be checked more rigorously.
Does this also affect Rawhide? Some people on the mailing lists appear to be under the impression it does or should, but the proposal appears to say it doesn't (outside of freeze periods).
I think this, coupled with israwhidebroken.com should keep us safe from a busted rawhide.
It's not gnome-centric - it follows what is in our default install.
This one really needs to be discussed on the mailing list before being rushed to a meeting:
It was posted for review on the list 2 weeks ago:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-June/msg00714.html
There is discussion in the Talk section of the proposal itself. We have done due diligence in soliciting feedback already, and there is no reason to re-send the same proposal and wait for more.
Replying to [comment:3 skvidal]:
Is the package list correct? For example, Nicolas Mailhot objected to bitmap-fonts being on the list in the blog comments. The package list is given to change. The specific pkgs on the list is less important than the proposal that certain packages need to be checked more rigorously.
I'll add that Nicolas' objection was more a question of why it showed up. This will help highlight dependencies that really don't make sense, and theoretically help clean up those deps overall.
I think most people didn't actually follow those wiki links. :-( I had forgotten about that "link list" mail as well, that's why I incorrectly complained about this not having been sent to the mailing list, sorry for that. But I do think the lack of feedback may have something to do with how this was presented.
I'll also echo the usual complaints from Rahul Sundaram et al. about in-person meetings being a bad way of forming decisions for transparency reasons.
That said, there's still the other reason to postpone a vote: IMHO (and jreznik and rdieter agreed with me on that when I talked about this proposal on #fedora-kde), we need a definitive list of critical packages before we can put this up for a vote. Why should we vote for a black box?
Replying to [comment:6 kkofler]:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-June/msg00714.html I think most people didn't actually follow those wiki links. :-( I had forgotten about that "link list" mail as well, that's why I incorrectly complained about this not having been sent to the mailing list, sorry for that. But I do think the lack of feedback may have something to do with how this was presented.
We can't help it if people don't follow links.
Which is expressly why these are PROPOSALS, not decisions. The decisions are for FESCo.
It's not about the packages. It's about the concept that some packages are more important than others, and what that means.
This proposal was approved.
okay, I've updated the proposal page with the additional info I was asked for:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_Path_Packages_Proposal
I've also added links to the set of packages that will woods and I came up with and the tool we used to resolve out the deps. I'd like to get this talked about a little in the meeting to make sure everyone is okay with package list.
Why did that @critical-path-gnome stuff get (re?)added? The last I heard from wwoods (when he chimed in when we put this topic up in the KDE SIG meeting) is that he agreed that even GDM has too many dependencies and shouldn't be on the list, let alone the other GNOME stuff.
In any case, I object to GNOME being on the list and KDE not. When we discussed this within KDE SIG, the consensus was that this is not acceptable for us.
FYI, what's critical for a working KDE is simple to describe: kdebase-workspace and kdm (built from the same SRPM) and their dependencies.
This is why the crit-path-gnome was broken out into its own group. That way kde can add a crit-path-kde, etc, etc.
Replying to [comment:10 kkofler]:
This fails to make any sort of sense. First, the KDE SIG was told that their participation was optional, but welcomed. Note that you (and the rest of the KDE SIG, AIUI) were against this proposal in it's entirety and didn't want anything to do with it, now you're complaining that there's no @critical-path-kde?
So go describe the group (which you've already done in the next comment), and get on the bandwagon if you want to. If not, stop complaining.
There was nothing new for FESCo to do with this - this was advice only
Log in to comment on this ticket.