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

Re: I must be doing somthing seriously wrong...



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


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