Hello,
I was re-reading the third party software policy (and also the FESCo
ticket:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1617#comment:10), and
happened to notice that it looks like WGs are currently intended to be the
final arbiters of what repositories are and are not allowed to be included
in particular Fedora editions, particularly this comment:
"The submission process is edition-based. Acceptance into Fedora
Workstation, for instance, does not guarantee your software will be as
easily available in another Fedora Edition or in a Fedora Spin. It is up to
each working group or special interest groups how to make available any
software in their system."
I realize I'm a little late to bring this up, but this seems potentially
concerning if, say, the Workstation and Server WGs both want to include a
third party repository that packages the same software but differently.
This would then potentially make the editions incompatible, which doesn't
seem ideal.
Perhaps this is an implementation detail to be worked out, but as it's not
otherwise mentioned in the policy... it seems like in the interests of
standardization it would be better if a single group (FESCo? perhaps
another WG dedicated to this purpose?) were the final arbiter of whether or
not a third party repository could be included in the distribution at all,
and then it would be up to the WGs to decide if and how to ship it. Or, at
the very least, if a single group had some oversight over the entire
process even if they did not have to approve each and every third party
repository themselves.
Skimming through the discussion on the subject it didn't seem like this
point seemed controversial to anyone else. So maybe other people have
already thought about this and decided it's not a big deal. But I figured
it couldn't hurt to ask.
Ben Rosser