[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: remove fedora-usermgmt?



Axel Thimm schrieb:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 05:47:34PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Michael Schwendt schrieb:
>>> fedora-usermgmt is not about fixing something, but about adding a
>>> feature. Well, that's my point of view. I'm not a hardcore advocate of
>>> using it everywhere. But I don't understand why a simple EPEL steering
>>> decision is wrapped into a crusade against an optional tool.
>> Mainly for two reasons afaics:
>> - Because the rules in EPEL imho should be as identical to the rules
>> from Fedora as much as possible, as everything that differs between the
>> two will make life harder for users and packagers (for example a package
>> that currently uses fedora-usermgmt in Fedora could not simply be build
>> for EPEL without adjustments)
> Mostly agreed, but it tears on our nerves.

I still fail to see how fedora-usermgmt "tears on our nerves" (besides
this discussion). Can somebody *please* show me two detailed examples
where using fedora-usermgmt in a package does something bad/odd on
peoples systems in the default install (e.g. in case the admin didn't
set it up)? tia!

> We need to be able to veto some
> stuff from entering EPEL and throw them back in the Fedora pool to
> mature/be discussed there. En attendant Godot isn't good for EPEL ...

My take: For EPEL5 maybe (as EPEL is starting now), but only if we
really really have to. For EPEL6 and later: By all means no -- there
should be enough time to work out and test a solution in Fedora land in
time for EPEL6 that fits both the needs of Fedora and EPEL.

> So, how about vetoing instead of branching?

I still fail to see why. These seems to be a lot of FUD around.

CU
thl


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]