[Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 10:32 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 11:22 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > Is there any case to allow Supplements: in the Fedora Collection? 
> > It
> > seems to me like this could be problematic. (e.g. I write a plugin 
> > for
> > a popular engine and package it, then add Supplements: so that it 
> > gets
> > pulled in by default whenever that engine is installed. My plugin 
> > then
> > causes things to crash.) I think it is reasonable for us to forbid
> > Supplements: except with FPC exemption. It should be up to the 
> > owner 
> > of
> > the primary package to decide to add Recommends: instead.
> 
> The new guidelines say "reverse dependencies may be used with the
> agreement of the package maintainer of the targeted package" which
> seems good enough to me.
> 
> "Reverse dependencies are mainly designed for 3rd party vendors who 
> can
> attach their plug-ins/add-ons/extensions to distribution or other 3rd
> party packages. Within Fedora the control over which packages a 
> package
> requires should stay with the package maintainer. There are, however,
> cases when it is easier for the requiring package not needing to care
> about all add-ons. In this cases reverse dependencies may be used 
> with
> the agreement of the package maintainer of the targeted package."

I guess I'd have preferred stronger wording. Something to the effect of
"reverse dependencies may not be used except with the permission of the
package maintainer of the targeted package."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150710/89c353b1/attachment.sig>