fesco

#3585 Retroactively approve the addition of cisco-openh264 reposistory
Opened by zbyszek. Modified

Open
Close Issue

The repo file was originally added in [1], disabled by default. AFAICT, there was no public decision. The change was implemented in [2]. An announcement was made via a blog note [3]. Later, the Workstation working group voted to enable the repo by default [4], which was implemented in [5, 6]. The repo remains enabled [7].

Our policy [8] says:

Third-party repositories must be approved by an active Fedora working group or SIG, or by FESCo. Groups who approve the inclusion of third party repositories must have a documented process which allows for community input, which produces a traceable history for each decision (for example, a ticket or other record).

Changes made by one Edition or spin should not impact other Fedora editions or spins.

The process by which we came to have cisco-openh264 falls short of those requirements. Nevertheless, I think we want to have it enabled by default, so we should approve it to make its present consistent with the documented policy.

Proposal: The addition and enablement of cisco-openh264 repository is retroactively approved.

[1] https://pagure.io/fedora-repos/c/68d886ffc22b21d8eedac1c625f831fd07e76724
[2] https://pagure.io/fedora-repos/c/68d886ffc22b21d8eedac1c625f831fd07e76724
[3] https://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2016/05/12/h264-in-fedora-workstation/
[4] https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/84
[5] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1807679
[6] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-repos/pull-request/52#request_diff
[7] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-repos/blob/99301fd94d5595a63e2920de90e8e98abd457468/f/fedora-cisco-openh264.repo
[8] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Third_Party_Repository_Policy/

+1

So, to clarify a bit the history here... I think the issue came up because firefox was downloading a openh264 build for the user, and this was not seen as very desireable.
See:

https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1192
and
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1359

From that the FPL and workstation working group and releng worked to come up with some way we could get a build to our users that we built and signed.

Then the decision was bumped to the council. See:

https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets/issues/57
and
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets/issues/324

+1 in any case to clarify fesco has approved this repo.

Agree with Kevin that it feels like this was already approved but I'm fine giving it a second stamp of approval. +1

Given how much hassle keeping this running has been, the contrarian part of me wants to vote against it, but nah.

+1

yeah, just so as to avoid confusion

+1

+1

After 10 days:
APPROVED (+6, 0, 0)

Metadata Update from @siosm:
- Issue tagged with: pending announcement

Announced: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/3YHI3QNTXYWYW3J6FLQ5NQ2RWW36QV26/

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

Metadata Update from @siosm:
- Issue untagged with: pending announcement

Metadata Update from @zbyszek:
- Issue status updated to: Open (was: Closed)
- Issue tagged with: document it

Fixing the docs publishing: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/docs/docs-fp-o/pulls/30

This was discussed during today's meeting (logs):

ACTION: ngompa to wordsmith a PR to document the CISCo OpenH264
repository. (@decathorpe:fedora.im, 18:28:29)

ACTION: decathorpe to figure out why the docs site is still
pointing at the old docs repository on pagure.io and fixit
(@decathorpe:fedora.im, 18:30:05)

ACTION: siosm to fix fesco-docs builds, nevermind the last
action item (@decathorpe:fedora.im, 18:30:50)
Metadata
None

document it

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.