The intel-oneapi-common-licensing package installs the license of the Intel Software Development Tools (see /opt/intel/oneapi/licensing/2023.1.0/license.htm)

Hm ... I'm not sure how this is different from shipping repos for PyCharm, for example. The only rule we have is that repos must not be enabled by default without going through the necessary approvals.

The docs are here:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_configuration_of_package_managers

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Third_Party_Repository_Policy/

I sure can disable it by default. (That was actually how I had it in fedora-workstation-repositories.

The big concern I think might be that Intel doesn't care to ensure it doesn't break Fedora systems.

I don't know what's in their repo, but if they're doing weird things with LLVM and such, that could be a problem. I've had pretty bad experiences with Intel-packaged software before, so this makes me a bit nervous.

My question is why? What's the benefit of packaging the repo file in Fedora vs. getting it directly from Intel? It's Intel's repo, after all; why should the repo file be maintained by Fedora rather than Intel?

I can't answer the "why" question; it seems to me that dnf makes adding a repository pretty simple and so there's not much real reason to package these things. But if someone wants to package it, the distro policy is pretty clear that these things can be packaged as long as they are disabled by default.

So to me the question is whether we need anything that actually says how you package external repository files. I think the "how" is somewhat obvious; there's really only one place they can go, there is no file validatorand no scriptlets or anything are required, so any guideline would be pretty small. That leaves what may be a fundamental issue: do the guidelines need to somehow echo any distro policy if that policy influences something you might put in a package? I guess the answer is probably yes, but we already don't for most of the licensing stuff so I guess I don't know.

I brought this up during this week's FESCo meeting, and we came to the conclusion that this is already covered by the existing policy here:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Third_Party_Repository_Policy/

I sure can disable it by default. (That was actually how I had it in fedora-workstation-repositories.

It doesn't matter if the repositories are enabled or not, all of them must go through review with either FESCo or a specific WG:

repository files must initially include the enabled=0 (or equivalent) setting, and the user must explicitly enable third-party repositories to install from them

(from https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Third_Party_Repository_Policy/#_third_party_repository_distribution)

and

Third-party repositories must be approved by an active Fedora working group or SIG, or by FESCo

(from https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Third_Party_Repository_Policy/#_key_requirements_for_third_party_repositories)

Other FESCo members were open to improving the text of the policy if anything was unclear, but to me, reading the policy, I don't think there's much to be improved here.