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

Re: Package Maintainers Flags policy



On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 14:56 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> 
> It came across as implementable, not as understandability:
> """"
> There is an easier option 3, which is no flags in Fedora period,
> regardless of what spin.  Far easier to implement.
> """

Sorry, I obviously typed without thinking (:

> >  It
> > may be more difficult to enact, but it is a far sight easier than trying
> > to figure out what other packages might require your flags, and if any
> > of those packages are on something called a "default spin", which can
> > change it's contents at any time.
> 
> And here you're again arguing about implementation, not about 
> understandability.
> 
> Where we deal with implementation, we deal with Bill's note about 
> "easy".  It's easier to trust that your packagers haven't packaged 
> anything that has flags than to write a script that looks for the 
> Provides (or filename) in the package set but it's not necessarily right 
> for Fedora.
-- 
Jesse Keating RHCE      (http://jkeating.livejournal.com)
Fedora Project          (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating)
GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
identi.ca               (http://identi.ca/jkeating)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


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