On 6 October 2015 at 14:49, Jared K. Smith <jsmith(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>
> I'm putting up another pass at the proposal, as there were some
> critical typographical errors in the last one that caused confusion
> (there were a couple places where I wrote "bundled" and meant
> "unbundled" and the reverse). This revised version should be clearer.
>
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).
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...
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.
Extra points if we can put this in as an RPM header and you can have a
plugin which says "I only want N point packages"
--
Jared Smith
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct:
http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
--
Stephen J Smoogen.