fesco

#2422 Change proposal deadline exception request
Closed: Accepted by zbyszek. Opened by iucar.

Closed: Accepted
Reopen Issue

Some background:

  • I packaged FlexiBLAS, which was reviewed an accepted just yesterday.
  • I opened a FPC issue to discuss BLAS/LAPACK packaging and my proposal.
  • I've written a change proposal. You'll find further details there.

The problem is that I thought (after reading the change policy) that this proposal would qualify as a self-contained proposal due to its limited impact (30-40 packages), and because it's easy to implement and doesn't change the behaviour of those packages or anything like that. But now I've seen in the change template that I would need to list all the maintainers of those 30-40 packages as proposal owners (which may take a lot of time to contact them, coordinate with them...).

So this is a simple change, but given the requirement above (apologies, I didn't know; this is my first proposal), it's tons easier as a system-wide proposal, with maybe the help of a provenpackager. But the deadline for system-wide proposals ended just yesterday. :( Therefore, I would be very grateful if FESCo would consider an exception and accept this change as a system-wide proposal.

  1. Please go ahead and submit it. @bcotton usually announces the change proposal and notes it has come in a bit late. FESCo can approve it anyway.
  2. Changes that impact 30-40 packages are often submitted as self contained. If there is a hard requirement to submit them as system wide if all package maintainers are not listed as change owners, it has not been followed in reality.
  3. Totally fine to give you my +1 to submit this during this week as System Wide change.

Metadata Update from @churchyard:
- Issue tagged with: F33

I think it's fine to extend the deadline a bit one this one. This change is about computational packages which are "leaf" packages, in the sense that the core of the system does not depend on them. I think it's totally OK to do this kind of change relatively late in the case. All aspects of blas implementation have excellent test coverage in various packages, so I'm pretty confident that such a change will not result in issues that are only discovered late, and thus a long testing period is not necessary.

FWIW, I'd support handling this as a self-contained change. It's in that gray area where you could make a reasonable argument for either category.

Thank you all. I added all the info required for a SystemWideChange and submitted it as such, but please feel free to change it to self-contained if you think it's best.

I'll close this as "approved" without a formal vote. I think we're all in favour.

Metadata Update from @zbyszek:
- Issue close_status updated to: Accepted
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

Metadata Update from @bcotton:
- Issue untagged with: F33
- Issue set to the milestone: Fedora 33
Metadata
None
None
None
None
None
Static archive. pagure.io was sunset in 2026; this is a read-only snapshot.
Red Hat Logo

Fedora is sponsored by Red Hat. Learn more about the relationship between Red Hat and Fedora »

© Red Hat, Inc. and others.