Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Jared K. Smith jsmith at
Tue Oct 6 20:49:54 UTC 2015

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at>

> 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.

I've gone over this in my head a number of times, and wonder if it might
make more sense to come up with a policy that wasn't necessarily so black
and white, and allows for more shades of gray.  Remixing an idea that Spot
presented at Southeast LinuxFest a few years back -- what if we assigned a
certain number of "points" or "demerits" for each instance of bundling (or
other packaging transgressions).

It would then be easier to say "Critical path packages must have 0 points"
and "Ring 1" packages must have three or fewer points", and "COPR doesn't
care about points", etc...

I think this strikes a fair balance between promoting packaging hygiene and
recognizing that not all upstream communities feel the same way Fedora
packagers do about bundled libraries.

Jared Smith
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the devel mailing list