There have been a few instances where the question of doing a mass package import has come up. Most recently relating to potentially splitting the texlive mega-package and with importing SCL stacks (since FPC indicated that they'd have to be in separate packages). An older example was the Xorg split.
For the Xorg split, I just said I was doing abbreviated reviews and took care of the bugs. But if we wanted to split texlive or import a big ruby SCL stack, we'd have to open a whole lot of bugs, and that's kind of cumbersome.
Before I get into proposing possible exceptions to the process, I'd like to clarify whose business it is. Is this an FPC thing or an FESCo thing? FESCo could of course decide to delegate if it wishes; I think FPC could handle it given our current workload.
I am new to FESCo, so I don't know the past history and/or context, if there is any, but I am fine with the FPC deciding upon exceptions to the package review process. After all, it is the Fedora Packaging Committee and we are talking about package reviews.
I think there are three questions here: "Should we allow mass package import at all?", "Who decides what warrants these exceptions?" and "What is the process?".
I think FESCo needs to decide the second question and I'd agree with rishi above that FPC is the right set of people to determine the exceptions. I'd also say that FPC should therefore be responsible for creating the exception process.
As for the first question: I think that it's reasonable to have that decided by the higher-level committee. I'd be perfectly content to vote +1 on allowing mass package imports.
I agree with [comment:2 sgallagh].
I have no problem drafting policy on this. I don't think FPC would have an issue dealing with the actual requests as they would be pretty rare and FPC is running quite smoothly as of late.
Adding meeting keyword
AGREED: delegate authority over exceptions to the package review process to FPC (+8,0,0) (nirik, 18:53:26)
Login to comment on this ticket.