So in trying to answer a question on the packaging list, I noticed that we have this guideline:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Configuration_of_Package_Managers
which says that an RPM can't include repository configuration files period unless they're official Fedora repos.
But there's also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_Party_Repository_Policy and this FESCo ticket: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1421 which say that it's OK to include COPR repositories in their disabled state.
So, ugh, sigh, etc.
I don't have time at the moment to make a draft. Ripping out our guideline section and linking to the policy page is one option, but it would probably be better to refer to it and re-state it to say exactly what that means to packagers.
Metadata Update from @tibbs: - Issue assigned to tibbs
Metadata Update from @tibbs: - Issue tagged with: meeting
Proposal:
Replace the entirety of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Configuration_of_Package_Managers section with:
Packages MUST NOT install repository configuration files which violate the Third Party Repository Policy ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_Party_Repository_Policy), unless those files are installed under %{_docdir}.
We discussed this at this weeks meeting (http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2017-06-01/fpc.2017-06-01-16.00.txt):
...racor was the only holdout, and I still don't know what for. Current information on wiki is false, so if someone else can +1 that'd be cool.
+1 from me.
...racor was the only holdout, and I still don't know what for. We discussed this during the meeting. I voted against it, because I consider COPRs as part of Fedora repos not to be helpful and FESCOs decision to be a mistake. +1 from me. Urgh. I see a conflict of interest on your part, rathann.
...racor was the only holdout, and I still don't know what for. We discussed this during the meeting. I voted against it, because I consider COPRs as part of Fedora repos not to be helpful and FESCOs decision to be a mistake.
+1 from me. Urgh. I see a conflict of interest on your part, rathann.
Written up. Since this is just removing information that's been wrong for over two years, I don't really see anything to announce. If someone objects and would prefer that this be announced, please let me know.
Metadata Update from @tibbs: - Issue untagged with: meeting - Issue close_status updated to: accepted - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Login to comment on this ticket.