Given the recent discussion on artwork that was considered violating Fedora guidelines (see ticket https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1230), I would like to propose a graceful way to handle situations where Fedora is going to package alternative content or stripping out content from upstream sources.
My proposal is that in the case of Fedora providing alternative content, it to be packed in a sub package. The original content should then also be made available in a sub package. That would leave the option for the user to accept the alternative content (that might be installed by default) or install the original.
In case of a removal of some content from the main package, a sub package containing the omitted content should be made available.
In case Fedora doesn't want to ship (provide) the original content, providing the alternative content in a sub package still leaves the option of alternative repositories to provide a package with the original content.
I feel that a solution like this is a balanced way to achieve two important goals:[[BR]] 1) Obey the Fedora Packaging Guidelines[[BR]] 2) Give the user the freedom to choose for themselves on package contents
Thanks for your consideration!
For the case presented by 1230, we would not want the content shipped in the Fedora repositories. Your technical point about making it possible for third party repositories (in this case, at this time, including copr repos as this isn't a legal issue) to offer replacement content packages is valid, though. I guess that fesco could decide whether we want to work with third-party repositories in this manner and if so, then a draft could be presented to FPC to integrate into the packaging guidelines.
Thanks for your response. If I can be of help in this process, please let me know.
I fail to see the point here. Splitting out content simply so it can be overridden by a third-party repo seems equivalent to splitting out any situation where we patch out code as well.
Code patches are (should) generally (be) because of Fedora-specific situations or bug fixes or enhancements that are not (yet) accepted by upstream. So their nature is (pure) technical and bound to the specifics of the Fedora distro. In general, there is no dispute about these code patches. The situation with other content is different. Here people might insist on using the original content. When the violating content is not distributed by Fedora, it possible to have a clean (private) add-on package installed. When the content is altered by Fedora, the clean way of replacing it with other or the original content is by replacing the sub package carrying the altered content.
Generally, additions to upstream packages are already done by creating sub packages. My proposal is to do this as well for replacement content that is (only) there due to guidelines violations.
Well, when we make changes due to upstream being afoul of guidelines, we modify the main package, to the point of not even shipping the source: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code
In any case, I feel pretty strongly that if Fedoa has decided that some piece of content is not to be shipped due to guideline reasons (whatever they are), then adhering to that is the point - if it's a strong enough reason we shouldn't ship it, it should be excised entirely, not put up as a weak statement of "here's how you swap in the stuff we won't ship to you". That defeats the point.
Honestly, if people insist on wanting a particular logo (or whatever) that we don't ship, they are always free to patch and rebuild it locally, just like any other feature or option that might be disabled in Fedora's packages.
For what it is worth, I'm in full agreement with notting in comment 6.
I also agree with notting here. If we've made the rare decision to remove something unacceptable, we should be holding fast to that decision.
If a workaround was acceptable, that should have been the first choice anyway.
Replying to [comment:6 notting]:
In case of for example media codecs, Fedora is providing numerous pointers and directions to ways to get such codecs installed. So if Fedora's policy is to not make weak statements on guideline abeyance, then we are apparently having double standards within the Fedora Project.
BTW. Providing such pointers and directions goes way beyond my proposal to just make a seamless swap '''technically''' possible to facilitate point 2) from the ticket.
Codecs are a different case. It's not that we don't want to ship certain codecs; it's that we can't legally ship them. So in that case we want to do whatever we legally can to point people in the right direction.
Guidelines are guidelines, whether we like them or not. So that should IMHO make no difference on how we execute them. Actually, I don't think there are many occasions where we are happy to make changes to packages just due to guidelines. Even if we feel we should, it is extra work.
Anyway, I feel we are drifting off. Maybe it is time to take a decision and move on.
not all guidelines are the same. the packaging guidelines and fesco policies and most board policies express the world that we wish to create. the legal guidelines express the limitations of the world that we live in. where the limitations and our desires as a project differ we make other efforts to mitigate the effects the limitations have.
as for this proposal, I wouldn't make this a packaging guideline but I also wouldn't prohibit it.let the maintainer decide if they want to do the extra work to make this cooperation with a third party repository possible.
I would be happy if it would be presented as a valid option (or better a recommendation) in the packaging guidelines.
AGREED: no FESCo change. The FPC could update the guidelines if they want, but FESCo recommends that no change be made (+8,0,0) (nirik, 18:59:04)
Login to comment on this ticket.