[Fedora-packaging] Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2014-12-11 17:00 - 18:25 UTC)

[Bastien Nocera]

----- Original Message -----
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 09:04:19AM -0500, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > > On 12/12/2014 04:25 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > > >>> Meeting summary
> > > >>> ---------------
> > > >>> * Roll Call  (geppetto, 17:01:37)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> * #476  Requesting copylib exemption for libgnome-volume-control
> > > >>>   (geppetto, 17:06:19)
> > > >>>   * ACTION: General agreement that it should be made at least a
> > > >>>   static
> > > >>>     lib. … hopefully a shared lib. eventually.  (geppetto, 17:20:11)
> > > >>>
> > > >> Per the FPC decision that libgnome-volume-control is not an acceptable
> > > >> copylib, and therefore it has to be packaged as a static lib and
> > > >> packages using it modified to use it, some questions:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. who should be performing the modification?
> > > >> 2. presumably reviews of new packages depending on this would be
> > > >> blocked
> > > >> until such a static lib is available?
> > > >> 3. presumably whereas legacy packages that have already gone in are
> > > >> fine, we won't want to yank them
> > > > 
> > > > That won't happen.
> > > > 
> > > Presumably you're refering to #3 here? Or you're saying there won't be a
> > > libgnome-volume-control static lib?
> > 
> > The whole goal of using a git submodule is so that we don't offer to
> > 3rd-parties
> > a library, and so that we can change the API without any problems. Using a
> > static
> > library offers all the disadvantages and none of the advantages of using a
> > git submodule.
> Agreed, a static library is a waste of time. What about a normal
> shared library? Do you think patches to do that would be accepted?

How does a shared library solve any of those problems?