Package Maintainers Flags policy

[Jesse Keating]

On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 18:21 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better if we apply this policy only to those packages
> that contain "unsafe" flags? I mean, if the tarball contains an
> "unsafe" flag, make a flags subpackage with all the flags. On the
> other hand, if all the flags in the tarball are "safe" as in my above
> example, I don't see the rationale for spending the time and the
> effort of creating a subpackage.

That's not a terrible stance to take, until you have a package that
contains all the flags except for say Tibet.  Plus you then have to try
and keep a running list of "unsafe" flags, and make sure the package set
is kept up to date with those unsafe removals.  In my experience, such
efforts fail.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090519/d2d34952/attachment.sig>