RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 17:49, Stephen Gallagher a écrit :
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07/22/2013 10:51 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:38:54 -0400, Matthew Miller
>> <mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Obviously, no-bundled-libs is a crucial part of the packaging
>>> guidelines today. As a sysadmin, I know why it's important. This
>>> is not just a noble goal, but also something that pragmatically
>>> makes systems better. But, it's also keeping us from having
>>> software that people really use in Fedora. Chef and Hadoop are
>>> two big examples. This hurts us more than it helps the world. So,
>>> in some areas, we need a different approach.
>>
>> I'm a bit worried about this. We really want bundled libs to
>> eventually go away (for any particular bundled lib). This seems
>> like it could encourage permanently bundled libs. That is going to
>> make some packages conflicting for a very long time. (And the
>> conflicting packages may not be providing the same service, so that
>> you'd need to run two instances of Fedora to get both sets of
>> services.)
>
> I really agree with Matthew here. The value of unbundling from a
> maintenance perspective is obvious to *us*, but it's seen as limiting
> from the perspective of developers.

It's not seen as limiting it's seen as hard. It's not hard for us because
all our build infra has been designed around unbundling. It's hard for
others because there are no easy way to set up a build infra that follows
our rules, and can be used to create binaries for other systems too
(that's where OBS is brilliant)

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot