<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Stephen Gallagher <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sgallagh@redhat.com" target="_blank">sgallagh@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow:hidden">I'm putting up another pass at the proposal, as there were some<br>
critical typographical errors in the last one that caused confusion<br>
(there were a couple places where I wrote "bundled" and meant<br>
"unbundled" and the reverse). This revised version should be clearer.<br>
<span><br>
</span></div></blockquote></div><br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I've gone over this in my head a number of times, and wonder if it might make more sense to come up with a policy that wasn't necessarily so black and white, and allows for more shades of gray. Remixing an idea that Spot presented at Southeast LinuxFest a few years back -- what if we assigned a certain number of "points" or "demerits" for each instance of bundling (or other packaging transgressions).<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">It would then be easier to say "Critical path packages must have 0 points" and "Ring 1" packages must have three or fewer points", and "COPR doesn't care about points", etc...<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I think this strikes a fair balance between promoting packaging hygiene and recognizing that not all upstream communities feel the same way Fedora packagers do about bundled libraries.<br><br>--<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Jared Smith<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div></div>