Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements
Stephen John Smoogen
smooge at gmail.com
Tue Oct 6 20:58:14 UTC 2015
On 6 October 2015 at 14:49, Jared K. Smith <jsmith at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com>
>> 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 lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Stephen J Smoogen.
More information about the devel