Re: Fedora Extras vs. CLOSED RAWHIDE

[Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 freenet de>]

On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 20:10, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 18:03:15 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2004-08-03 at 17:26, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 
> > > Or reopen/file a new bug when it does become important.
> 
> Who decides when it becomes important? Not seldomly, a single bug
> reporter considers an issue as major bug. For instance, I don't consider
> missing dependencies (e.g. fam-devel missing dependency on
> libselinux-devel) a must-fix bug which should result in an immediate
> update release. It's nice and helpful to get an update for such bugs,
> though, especially when building a single extra package for multiple
> target platforms (with CVS and automated builds you would laugh about
> issues like that).
Fully agreed, this is a problem longing for a solution.

In general, I would expect "persons who trip such bugs" tending to ask
for immediate update ("I absolutely need a fix now") and "RH packagers"
to play it low or avoid fixing such bugs ("EOL; no time; RHEL has
priority").

Therefore, I could envision that in case of disagreement, such decisions
should neither be taken by the RH/FC packager nor  by the FE person, but
should be delegated to a neutral, (mediation, arbitration)
jury/committee, instead.

> > All one could do is to comment on a PR and politely ask the package
> > maintainer to look into a the PR again, hoping he will listen :-/
> 
> True. With a close(r) relationship between Fedora Extras and Fedora Core,
> it should not happen that easy-to-fix bugs in Fedora Core don't result in
> an update when extra packages need it. Or vice versa (when Core updates
> are not coordinated with Extras and break extra packages).
ACK. It means putting contributors into the role of a suppliant
depending on the grace of an individual.

Not necessarily encouraging to contributors and not necessarily an
indication for "equal rights".

Ralf