Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

Ian Malone ibmalone at gmail.com
Sun Oct 11 19:20:34 UTC 2015


On 11 October 2015 at 12:43, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler at chello.at> wrote:
> Haïkel wrote:
>> And what happens if the library is consumed by other packages
>> requiring the new API?
>
> Of course you have to support both the new and the old one.
>
>> Let's keep Ian example:
>> You keep the deprecated function in the new library despite upstream's
>> decision. Since we keep shipping it, developers will keep using it in
>> their new software, making it incompatible with other distro.
>
> Which is not our problem. (Developers should not use deprecated functions,
> no matter whether or when they get removed, so it's their fault, not ours.
> And in the end, it won't affect us at all if we ship the deprecated
> function, so why would we care?)
>
>> We only had one problem, now we have more problems.
>
> No. The other distro has a problem. Why would we care?

Maybe there's some confusion about the point I was making. I'm
referring to the case where the bundled library has functions that are
no longer present in the fedora version and the application requires
them.

An upstream may (or may not if abandoned) have their own schedule for
moving something to a newer version of a dependency, but if they're
bundling then that may be happening at a different speed to what
fedora is doing with that library. A maintainer who has unbundled
things independent of upstream will find themselves needing to
rebundle, fork and modify or just drop.

-- 
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk


More information about the devel mailing list