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

Re: remove fedora-usermgmt?

On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 10:44:46AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 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).

How else could it tear on them? I wasn't impling package installation
time ...

> 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!

Please, there are two infinite threads with examples and arguments in
them. Please read them, let's not loop again. This is exactly why we
need to be able to resolve stuff by a simple vote. Give a topic some
fair discussussion time, then vote on it and let it rip.

> > 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.

Can you give me two examples of FUD?
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpea9kVc5E0y.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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