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

Re: Package Maintainers Flags policy



On 05/19/2009 02:51 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On 05/19/2009 05:44 PM, Denis Leroy wrote:
That's a pretty vague sentence. Do we have something more specific to
work with, to justify this whole fiasco ? Have people complained ? Were
threats made ? Bugzilla tickets filed ? Did the PRC threaten to add
fedoraproject.org to the big firewall if we don't stop shipping FreeCIV
immediately (a CeasePackage-and-desist letter :-) ) ?

People complained. I was asked to write a policy draft to handle flags.
Well, to be specific, I was asked to document the unwritten "no flags"
policy that we'd had from the Red Hat Linux days, but after giving it
thought and consulting with Red Hat Legal, I came up with the current
policy which:

* permits flags in optional subpackages
* permits flags when their use is not technically or substantively
essential to the package

s/not//

?

* gives an explicit exception to flags when they are generic (fictional
countries count as generic)

Note that this one is tricky. A generic flag is fine. But if a real group (not necessarily a country) associates themselves with the flag, it would become banned under the current policy.

* has an exception clause where a packager can plead their case to FESCo

This is substantially divergent from "No Flags".

<nod>

-Toshio


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