Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 16:42 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 09/10/2015 03:53 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> 
> > I would like to propose that the no-bundled-libraries policy be
> > amended  as follows: "Any package that has an existing mechanism to
> > link against a shared system library and functions correctly when
> > doing so must link against that library and not bundle it
> > internally.
> > Any package whose upstream releases cannot link against a shared
> > system library (or are incompatible with the version in Fedora) may
> > bundle that library (without requiring a special exemption) but
> > MUST
> > add Provides: bundled(<libname>) = <version> in the spec file for
> > each
> > known bundled library.(This will allow us to track down the
> > bundling
> > when we need to). Package maintainers should continue attempt to
> > engage upstream to support linking against shared system libraries
> > wherever possible, due to the advantages it provides the package
> > maintainer."
> 
> Is <libname> the name of the SRPM which provides the system version
> of
> the library?

Exact implementation TBD. I didn't want to get too far into the
technical details. Assume it to be a generally agreed-upon format.


> 
> How do you propose to resolve symbol conflicts if both the system
> library and the bundled library are loaded into the same process? 
>  The
> current ELF linking scheme lacks good support for bundling libraries
> whose exported symbols have not been mangled in some way.
> 

I expect such cases to be rare and dealt with on an as-needed basis.
Generally, projects either bundle or don't. The fuzzy area might be
with plugins, I guess.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150910/a117acf1/attachment.sig>