<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:times new roman,serif;font-size:small"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Kevin Kofler </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:kevin.kofler@chello.at" target="_blank">kevin.kofler@chello.at</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">Jared K. Smith wrote:<br>
> I think this strikes a fair balance between promoting packaging hygiene<br>
> and recognizing that not all upstream communities feel the same way Fedora<br>
> packagers do about bundled libraries.<br>
<br>
</span>The thing is, it should NOT matter at all how upstream feels. If we treat<br>
unbundling as something to do with upstream, we already failed. Unbundling<br>
must be done whether upstream likes it or not, even in upstream's spite! And<br>
it's the packager's job to do it: "upstream does not support it" is NOT a<br>
valid excuse for not unbundling!<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Kevin Kofler<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'times new roman',serif;font-size:small">Not that I don't agree that we should pursue unbundling whenever possible, but I don't remember any contract or terms that explicitly said <i>packagers</i> do the work of <i>developers</i> to re-architect applications/services/etc to do stuff like that. In fact, I thought <i>the whole point</i> of RPM packaging (and indeed packaging in general) was to make it so that you could reliably build and install software. Spiting upstream is just asking for trouble, too.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'times new roman',serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'times new roman',serif;font-size:small">Personally, I would consider "upstream does not support it" a very valid reason to not unbundle. It gets very hard to pin down where the problems are caused when the rug is pulled out from under you. Some applications do all kinds of things with their libraries or code chunks to make it safe or useful for their needs.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'times new roman',serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:'times new roman',serif;font-size:small">We should, of course, default to unbundling. But if it's not feasible, we need a firm policy on how to include the software and continually engage on developing solutions that are appealing to everyone on improving the modularity of software and usefulness of reusing system copies of libraries.</div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!<br></div></div>
</div><font face="yw-402608bc37fe50adb11a5899295781aeb83d248d-e146c760ce3602bca256e1b83bd4610f--o" style="display: none;"></font></div>