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

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:51:42 -0700
Adam Williamson <adamwill at fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 13:35 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> 
> > As for which components, it's not about specific examples[1]. It's
> > about solving the question in a generic way. We have quite a lot of
> > software that isn't packaged for Fedora (either not started or
> > aborted
> > when the package review couldn't be passed) that has genuine value.
> 
> I can certainly confirm that. I dug through quite a lot of review
> requests yesterday to look at how the rules have been applied in
> practice, and found several that have been abandoned because of
> bundling issues. I'll just link one example -
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836810 - but it's trivial
> to find more.

But by the same token, a great deal of upstream projects don't bundle
things and are just fine packaged up in Fedora. 

The application type things that bundle a lot seem to me things that
would be well suited to become xdg-apps. Ideally made as xdg-apps by
their upstreams (since in most of those cases the upstream wants to be
the ones supporting their app, etc). 

I'm not sure xdg-apps would be suited to those projects that are not
applications (like the bug you mention, or owncloud, etc), but if not
perhaps some other containerization could work there as well. 

I can still see some cases where we might want to unbundle things and
still ship something in the Fedora Collection. I'm not sure where the
line would be. Perhaps thats what we should think about?

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150911/98a2d215/attachment.sig>