[Proposal] Ring-based Packaging Policies
paul at city-fan.org
Thu Feb 12 20:05:29 UTC 2015
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:01:43 -0500
Colin Walters <walters at verbum.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015, at 01:32 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > tl;dr Shall we consider requiring a lesser package review for
> > packages that are not present on Product or Spin install media?
> It's worth noting here that having two levels is not really going
> to be new to the ecosystem; e.g. Ubuntu has had Main/Universe
> for quite a while:
> I just have one question: You're defining this split at the *runtime*
> level. Last I saw the Base working group was trying to cut down
> BuildRequires (but sadly I haven't seen them fighting Requires yet -
> I would love if someone did that for Perl)
We generally have requires for most optional functionality in Perl
packages at the moment, to avoid bugs being raised about missing
dependencies when people try to use that optional functionality.
If there was consensus about use of soft dependencies, that would
probably help a lot in the Perl world.
More information about the devel