Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

[Bill Nottingham]

Adam Williamson (adamwill at fedoraproject.org) said: 
> > Similarly, if I'm developing some piece of software that embeds/uses
> > PostgreSQL, I'm likely targeting multiple distributions, potentially
> > including Fedora, CentOS, RHEL, Ubuntu, and more. Even if Postgres
> > is a core
> > well maintained part of Fedora, I'm not going to care about that
> > version.
> > I'm going to pick a constant version and pull it from something like
> > software collections (or, you know, upstream postgresql.org.)
> 
> Things like pgsql, for me, are the ones that make this discussion
> complex, because they can clearly go either way. There are certainly,
> I think, also cases where you *want* a distro package for it.

Yes, I can certainly see where you'd have a Postgres package for Fedora
end users, but not have it as part of the platform that third-party
packages are expected to use, for example.

> > To allow or not allow bundling is the small side point here - the
> > questions
> > should be more of "Are we a distribution of packages?  Are we an OS?
> >   Where
> > do we see the distribution/OS fit in how software is consumed and
> > provided?
> > Is that different for a Workstation vs an Atomic host?" Answer those
> > big
> > questions, and the questions on what to do along Ring0->RingN, what
> > bundling
> > to allow, etc. should fall out.
> 
> Absolutely this. Can you please stand for election to something again?
> :)

Heh. While I appreciate the sentiment, as Josh says, it's not about standing
for office, it's about having time to acutally do the consensus building,
the proposals, & the work, and that is time I don't have at the moment.

Bill