On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 7:38 AM Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 7:51 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 7:05 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:10:41PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > > On the topic of FPCA improvements, it would probably make sense
(if
> > > > > the FPCA is retained) to replace the MIT license as the default
code
> > > > > license with MIT No Attribution, aka MIT-0, recently approved by
the
> > > > > OSI as an open source license:
> > > > >
https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT-0
> > > > > (which would also enable a minor simplification of the FPCA
text).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I would personally prefer we didn't. That has the knock-on effect
of
> > > > making it possible for RHEL folks to not include Fedora changelogs
> > > > when they fork Fedora for RHEL, since the RPM changelogs are the
only
> > > > attribution we actually *have* in the distribution. And I've
> > > > personally experienced very positive reinforcement for contributing
to
> > > > Fedora and CentOS Stream by pointing to public attribution via
changelogs.
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree with Neal here as a deep gut reaction. Recognition is important,
> > > even if it is buried pretty deeply from endusers.
> > >
> > > That said, uh, we trim changelogs, so if we're arguing that that's
the
> > > attribution part, we have some digging through git history to do to
repair
> > > that.
> > >
> >
> > Red Hat is going to have to fix *a lot* of the process around
> > Fedora->RHEL/CentOS if we're going to rely on Git history for
> > attribution. Especially if rpmautospec gets broader adoption. I was
> > personally pretty upset about how the c9s branches were forked from
> > Fedora Linux 34, where all the Fedora history was *gone*. I know that
> > it's still there in the internal RHEL Dist-Git, but the fact they
>
> You don't know that, and it's actually not there.
>
> This is what the import commits look like:
>
> commit eb6f429d3f0c2f41aa5bb7f8e5153668aa812553
> Author: XXXX XXXXXX <XXXXXX(a)redhat.com>
> Date: Fri Oct 23 08:45:59 2020 -0700
>
> RHEL 9.0.0 bootstrap
>
> The content of this branch was automatically imported from Fedora ELN
> with the following as its source:
>
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glibc#90ca20fd0234925743db5e1e231b73b4...
>
> then later
>
> commit df9ce2ff57e675edea493144401a1e1c9ed0f2b5
> Author: DistroBaker <xxxxxxxx(a)redhat.com>
> Date: Tue Dec 15 10:59:21 2020 +0000
>
> Merged update from upstream sources
>
> This is an automated DistroBaker update from upstream sources.
> If you do not know what this is about or would like to opt out,
> contact the XXXX team.
>
> Source:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glibc.git#525dee4c87180db08e1776a
> d3cb0e66a9b38e81f
>
>
> Please don't fall into the trap of believing your assumptions are reality :)
>
That is insufficient. And when rpmautospec based packages start coming
to RHEL, it'll be *definitely* insufficient because none of that will
make it into the generated spec file and built packages.
That's 3 years down the road. Perhaps things can be improved between
now and then. Fortunately, work done against RHEL now via CentOS
Stream will have attribution in the MRs, etc.
josh