On 02/23/2017 02:23 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Dominik 'Rathann'
Mierzejewski
<dominik(a)greysector.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 07:16, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 02/23/2017 02:23 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 23 February 2017 at 00:08, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2017-02-22 at 22:53 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann'
Mierzejewski
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Dear Fedora developers,
>>>>> there have been a number of examples where an update in a stable
branch
>>>>> brought in new dependencies and in significant numbers. The most
recent
>>>>> case was discussed on this list even today:
>>>>>
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o...
>>>>
>>>> That discussion was about Rawhide. Not about a stable release.
>>>
>>> True, but the issue is the same. New or changed dependencies cause
>>> problems.
>>
>> Not quite. This only applies to "weak deps".
>
> How so?
>
>> New "strong deps" or "changed deps" are should to solve
problems, otherwise
>> there would not be any need for changes.
>
> "are should to"? Sorry, I can't understand the above sentence.
This was a typo. This should have been:
"New or changed strong deps are supposed to/should solve problems", ...
I.e. new or changed "strong deps" are bug-fixes.
"Weak deps" are a different story. Adding/removing/changing them are
mostly personal preference of a packager. They can cause harm.
>>> The proposed policy change talks about both rawhide and
stable branches.
>> I consider your proposal to be unnecessary.
>
> Could you elaborate on why you think it's unnecessary?
>
This proposal is rather burdensome with no particular gain.
Exactly. This is a good sentence to summarize what I had wanted to express.
Ralf