Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Stephen John Smoogen smooge at
Tue Oct 6 20:58:14 UTC 2015

On 6 October 2015 at 14:49, Jared K. Smith <jsmith at> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at>
> wrote:
>> 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.

Extra points if we can put this in as an RPM header and you can have a
plugin which says "I only want N point packages"

> --
> Jared Smith
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at
> Fedora Code of Conduct:

Stephen J Smoogen.

More information about the devel mailing list