[Proposal] Ring-based Packaging Policies
mschwendt at gmail.com
Sat Feb 14 01:07:46 UTC 2015
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:45:23 -0700, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:49:13 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >> Ultimately, it's about one thing: Help get more software into Fedora
> >> without scaring people away.
> > What is the background for this? Who has been scared away?
> Here's one review where the submitter worked very hard to jump through
> all the hoops until it came to the FPC bundling exception process.
> It's my opinion that Carlos would be a Fedora package maintainer today
> if that FPC process hadn't taken so long.
So, everybody's grief is just the unbundling policy?
Is that the only thing that "scares away" people?
Everything related to this proposal is only because of bundling?
> Here's the new policy that I would vote for:
> 1) We allow bundled libraries, and each bundled library MUST have a
> virtual Provides: bundled(foo) in the RPM spec. (The packager SHOULD
> provide a version number too, with the admission that it is sometimes
> difficult to get this number correct.)
> 2) If another packager comes up with a patch to unbundle the library and files
> the patch in Bugzilla, then the package maintainer MUST take the
> 3) If the package maintainer disagrees with the patch for whatever reason
> (maybe it's a feature regression, or whatever), they MUST bring it to
> the FPC for arbitration. The FPC must take into account the loss of
> functionality that unbundling could imply.
> This revised policy would lower the barrier to entry for newcomers,
> and still leave room for more advanced contributors to do the work if
> they desired to do so.
Isn't the combination of 2) and 3) a potential threat that will scare away
the maintainer again? (especially if upstream doesn't accept the patch)
More information about the devel