Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Stephen Gallagher sgallagh at redhat.com
Mon Oct 5 18:02:08 UTC 2015


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/30/2015 08:35 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Just to circle around here (in case people don't read my reply to
> the FESCo meeting agenda), I'm making the following revised
> proposal[1] to FESCo which may or may not be discussed at today's
> meeting (given that it was submitted late):
> 

I'm putting up another pass at the proposal, as there were some
critical typographical errors in the last one that caused confusion
(there were a couple places where I wrote "bundled" and meant
"unbundled" and the reverse). This revised version should be clearer.



=== Mandatory ===
* The Fedora Base Working Group has been tasked with defining the base
platform of Fedora since its inception. As part of this proposal, we
set a deadline for them to provide (and maintain) a specific list of
critical path packages. The critical path set is not required to be
self-hosting.
* Working Groups for the separate Editions may voluntarily add
packages into the critical path atop the Base WG requirements.
* All packages in the critical path must obey the current strict
bundling rules. Packages in the critical path that require bundling
must continue to seek exceptions from the Fedora Packaging Committee.
* All packages not in the critical path whose upstreams allow them to
be build against system libraries must be built against system libraries
.
* All packages not in the critical path whose upstreams have no
mechanism to build against system libraries must be contacted publicly
about a path to supporting system libraries. If upstream refuses, this
must be recorded in the spec file using a persistent mechanism to be
clarified in the packaging guidelines.
* All packages not in the critical path whose upstreams have no
mechanism to build against system libraries may opt to carry bundled
libraries, but if they do, they must include Provides:
bundled(<libname>) = <version> in their RPM spec file.

=== Strongly Recommended ===
* Packages in the critical path should be re-reviewed every two years
(possibly as a Flock workshop) to avoid unintentional divergence from
the policies.


Note: the term "critical path" is reused from a retired Fedora
packaging concept, but it is *not* representing the same set of
packages. We may need to come up with a more distinct term, but I
can't think of a better choice at this moment. Please avoid repainting
this shed.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlYSuxwACgkQeiVVYja6o6OYKwCdGv3+nISsTPak3N+vavV+Ttvk
BCYAnjNjInimvGRHpZzNJt5ytKhimE8t
=vlK0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the devel mailing list