>>>>> "ZJ" == Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl> writes:
ZJ> Heh, I don't think the FPC policy is very robust. It's as robust as is reasonable to implement. When fedora-obsolete-packages was introduced, there was considerable controversy over whether it is remotely acceptable to remove installed packages from end user systems when those packages aren't causing actual problems for anyone. The decision was made that they would be removed only when they cause dependency issues, and that this would be limited as much as possible to updates between Fedora releases. So, that's fedora-obsolete-packages. If you think it should be changed, feel free to bring it before FESCo and go through the discussion again. Personally I agree with the original decision: We should not simply be yanking software off of someone's system unless we simply have to do so because the system cannot be updated otherwise. ZJ> We know from experience that when users see "80 packages cannot be ZJ> upgraded and were skipped", they don't like it. Unless they are relying on those packages for something, of course. If you've figured out how to tell that's the case, feel free to give details. I would rather have an occasional message whenever possible rather than breaking someone's setup, but that's just me. ZJ> With the policy of "obsolete from fedora-obsolete-packages ZJ> sometimes" we'll always be playing whack-a-mole because with ZJ> approx. 2800 subpackages becoming obsolete, it is absolutely ZJ> guaranteed that some maintainers get it wrong. I would think that centralizing the obsoletes would make things better, not worse. It's certainly better than "obsolete from some other random package". And if we _know_ that there will be dependency problems (such as the old python2 package itself having to be obsoleted) then there isn't much of a question here, is there? The obsoletes would need to be added. ZJ> IMHO a simple policy of "always obsolete" is the only thing that can ZJ> work at this scale. What scale are you talking about? It's not clear to me if you're disagreeing with the entire concept of the distribution being conservative about removing packages from end-user systems, or if you have an argument that all python2 packages will need to be obsoleted regardless. If that's the case, then talking about the robustness of the policy seems odd because you're not actually disagreeing with it. You should instead simply make your argument so we can get on with business. - J< _______________________________________________ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
