Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
>
> Am 11.09.2015 um 15:27 schrieb Zdenek Kabelac:
>>
>> Dne 11.9.2015 v 15:22 Eric Griffith napsal(a):
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 11, 2015 9:03 AM, "Zdenek Kabelac" <zkabelac at redhat.com
>>> <mailto:zkabelac at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>  >
>>>  > Dne 11.9.2015 v 14:46 Germano Massullo napsal(a):
>>>  >
>>>  > Fault #1
>>>  > (I've already complained that usage of rawhide & rpmfusion is
>>> getting silly)
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>> How is the usage getting silly? *genuinely confused* Id love for
>>> Fedora to
>>> have everything in the repos (A la Arch) but for legal and philosophical
>>> reasons it's not possible.
>>
>>
>> My complain here is about packaging libraries.
>> And just because a library has been upgraded from version .so.2 to
>> version .so.4  and you can't have both (as the new one replaces old one
>> by Fedora policy) - you cannot normally use rpmfusion.
>
>
> the whole point of a *shared library* is to have single versions of
> libraries and not 10 versions you need to seek if they are affacted from
> wahtever security relevant bug, in many cases it will be impossible to
> answer that question

No, it really isn't.  The "shared" part of a shared library reflects
the fact that the text pages are shared across many processes that use
said library as opposed to every process containing its own copy.
This sharing saves memory.  It has nothing to do with differing
versions of the library being co-located on the system.

Your views on security aren't really off the mark, but they have no
reflection on the shared aspect of shared libraries.  Like all other
projects, libraries have versions and some things might need differing
versions.

josh