I must be doing somthing seriously wrong...

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Thu May 21 15:26:54 UTC 2009


On 05/21/2009 04:31 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 12:14:03PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>
> That's the problem with email threads that are so large.  People miss things
> because they don't always read every single email, regardless of what position
> in the thread it was.  Even if they do, they might be busy replying to flames
> and other useless junk instead of important stuff.
>
[...]
>
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-May/msg01414.html
>
Note, as mentioned there, the questions I raised in the original 
ticket[1]_ still weren't answered either.  Those questions were about 
applying the policy to real packages to delimit the intended scope. 
Here's a summary:

The policy contains:
"""
  *  Flags used for gaming purposes, such as a game that uses flags to 
represent country/language selection

   In this specific case, the flag usage is not acceptable. The flag use 
here is almost certainly not essential.
"""

Is the flag usage not-acceptable because the flag is being used for 
language selection?  Or is it not-acceptable because the flag is being 
used in a game?  If it's because it's in a game the example is broader 
than the policy.  A WWII simulation would have a real justification to 
use flags from the countries involved. freeciv gives the player the 
option to play as a historical leader from an actual country with 
appropriate background. These seem to be technically (user interface 
requires something that denotes a specific country) and substantively 
(other information linking to real geopolitical entities is given) 
necessary.

I go on to ask about games which need to have team identifiers and 
presently use flags but don't have other identifying elements as a followup.

[...]
 >> 7. What to do with a package that wont work without flags?
>
> 7) As FESCo for an exemption under the current guideline.
>
Note, the policy portion of the current document and the examples are in 
conflict over whether FESCo needs to be asked for an exemption and 
should be clarified along with the other changes made to it:

The policy says this:
"""
When a package contains flag images [...] where such use is not 
technically or substantively essential to the package, those flag images 
must be placed in an -flags subpackage.
"""

In this section the policy is saying which packages it applies to. 
Packages not covered by this statement should not be handled by the 
policy.  (ie, if flag usage is technically or substantively essential 
than the policy does not apply to it).

However, in the Examples area it says:

"""
Flags used for educational purposes, [...]

In this specific case, the flag usage would be acceptable. Instances 
like this must be examined on a case-by-case basis by FESCo, but they 
will often be acceptable because they are substantively essential to the 
core function of the package.
"""

Instead of saying that those types of packages are not covered by the 
Policy, it is saying that those types of packages are covered by the 
Policy but are likely candidates for an exemption due to the technical 
and substantive clause.  There are two ways to fix that:

1) Change the example to say "In this specific case, the flag usage 
would be acceptable because they are substantively essential to the core 
function of the package."

2) Move the technical and substantive clause into the exceptions section 
of the policy:
"""
== Exceptions ==
Any packager who feels that they should be granted an exception to this 
policy should escalate the issue to FESCo for review.  Common reasons 
for exceptions are that the flag usage is technically and substantively 
required by the package.
"""

When designing Fedora Packaging Guidelines we try to avoid having 
guidelines that require exceptions to be granted if we can elucidate the 
reasons that an exception would be granted.  This leads to less of a 
burden on FESCo to review the exceptions and better expectations by 
packager and reviewer of what is meant by the guidelines.  For those 
reasons, #1 seems like the better option to me.  Since this is a FESCo 
policy, not a Packaging Guideline, you'll need to decide if that's a 
goal for yourself, though.

.. _[1]: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/110




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list