Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

[Stephen John Smoogen]

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>
> 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 lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.