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

[Jóhann B. Guðmundsson]

On 09/11/2015 06:10 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 12:06 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> 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.
> I don't think anyone was advocating a policy that all packages must
> have a minimum of 1 (one) bundled library ;)
>
> I agree that the discussion here needs to be more broad-based; see the
> other thread fork. I was just providing support for Stephen's
> contention that this is not some airy-fairy theoretical problem, there
> are multiple examples of real things that people *wanted* to have
> packaged that are not packaged because the unbundling process was too
> onerous.
>

Arguably that is a testament of how heavy the bureaucracy in the 
distribution has become not the "bundling" itself.

JBG