what it takes to unbundle, in triangle form
aph at redhat.com
Thu Oct 8 14:37:32 UTC 2015
On 10/08/2015 02:01 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 02:50:59PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>> There was a middle ground there that could have been pursued a little
>> more: the sandbock repo which less strict guidelines keeping the
>> current Fedora repo with the current policies.
> I'm still generally in favor of that (and there's lots of room for it
> even with the bundling change). But, really, what would it solve above
> having everything together and having some kind of "Packaging Quality"
> metric for each package?
Maybe we're trying to do too much.
I suppose it's a question of choosing to do something which from a
software engineering perspective is not the best practice or not
including a package at all. I'd certainly prefer to see a somewhat
smaller well-engineered system than open the doors to packages with
their own versions of dependencies, each with their own set of bugs.
It would make more sense to push such packages into a separate
repository rather than making them part of the OS, or perhaps not
packaging them at all.
Such badly-packaged projects are IMO not something that should be in a
high-quality OS anyway. And I have no doubts about Fedora as a high-
quality OS: I presume that is our intention, especially with Red Hat
Enterprise Linux and CentOS downstream.
More information about the devel