TM approval request for Summit spin

[Matt Domsch]

On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 12:01:10AM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Paul W. Frields<stickster at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > * Includes Anaconda fixes as represented in Jeroen's F11 repo:
> > ?http://kanarip.com/anaconda/f11/i386/
> 
> In some conversations tonight this might be a showstopper for use of
> the Fedora marks, since we're including non-Fedora software on the
> spin, it could be at best called a remix.  Of course, if we can get
> the anaconda team to release it as an official update, problem
> solved......

>From the fedora-devel-list traffic of 28 July, it sounds like Jeroen
and David Cantrell have been working together to get an updated
anaconda package built, tested, and put into updates-released.  At
that point it would be considered "official" again, and not have to be
labeled as a Remix (with all the ensuing trademark removals
necessary).  Can that happen in time for Paul's deadline to get the
image on the keys, I don't know. I sure hope so.


I'm also concerned about the larger implications that this part of the
policy imposes.  If a single package's maintainers choose not to issue
an update (for whatever reason: lack of time; unhappy with the
proposed update), but a proposed Spin or Remix really requires that
update, policy today forces it to be a Remix, not a Spin.  With >8000
srpms in the tree now and growing, this gives a lot of packagers a
pretty good lever (intentional or not; used or not) over another
group's Spin vs Remix decision.  Someone in provenpackager could
resolve the issue by building and promoting the necessary update,
possibly against the wishes and plans of the package maintainer.

Perhaps this just shows a need for proposed Spins to get their
requirements into the Spin SIG as early as possible so these kinds of
issues can be worked out in sufficient time.

Thanks,
Matt