[Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

[Paul W. Frields]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 02:59:41PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 12:39 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > >>>>> "MM" == Matthew Miller <mattdm at fedoraproject.org> writes:
> > 
> > MM> That said, I do recognize that "provides high-quality packages" has
> > MM> also always been an underlying Fedora value even if unstated. But, I
> > MM> think that _that_ value should be in support of the Big Four, and in
> > MM> support of our mission in general, not a sacred beast for its own
> > MM> sake.
> > 
> > Well, for the FPC, high quality packaging is pretty much our only
> > mission.  I'm trying to avoid veering off into hyperbole here, but if we
> > can't be focused on our specific mission then that kind of complicates
> > our job.
> > 
> > But if FESCo or the board or whoever wants to say that we no longer
> > really care about bundling, then FPC will stop caring.  Right now we've
> > been told to care about bundling and so we developed all of this process
> > and rules to implement that directive.
> 
> Hi Jason,
> I have the impression (which may be totally wrong) that you are taking
> the binary approach here: either we care maximally or we do not care at
> all.

I took Jason's statement to mean the FPC would stop caring *about
bundling* if that's what FESCo (or someone) agrees on.  If one change
in the guidelines meant the difference between caring at all about
packaging, I'd think that ship would have sailed by now! :-)

> It seem to me Stephen is making a proposal to tweak just one specific
> aspect of packaging rule, that is a softer enforcement model. FPC still
> has a truckload other good rules about packaging and nobody believes FPC
> should stop caring about overall package quality.
> 
> I have mixed opinions myself about allowing bundling, on the one side it
> makes some things worse, on the other hand, however it is sometimes a
> way too step barrier to entrance. I've come to the conclusion I'd rather
> see a softer approach with strong encouragement to use unbundled
> libraries and a need to justify credibly why a bundled library is used
> but not a hard rule against it in all cases with hard exceptions to be
> doled out by the FPC, I think package review should be able to handle
> it.
> 
> This risks making somewhat harder to police egregious mis-behavior, but
> I am sure there are other ways to deal with offenders that willfully
> break reasonable rules.

Agreed.

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
    The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com