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

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2015-09-14 at 16:54 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 12 September 2015 at 04:10, Adam Williamson
> <adamwill at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> This is the idea behind COPR and Fedora Playground though - ensuring
> that packages that are *legally* acceptable for redistribution are
> easy to publish and consume for Fedora and EPEL users, while still
> being clearly distinct from the ones that have passed full review
> against the packaging guidelines.
> 
> What we haven't managed to do yet is update the package review
> process
> to better account for the distinction, such as by adopting a "COPR
> first" model, where folks put a package up in COPR with bundled
> components, and then either keep it there indefinitely, or
> collaborate
> with others on the unbundling effort.

Just to be awkward - I kinda found working with COPRs a PITA the only
time I tried it and went back to using my own server space. This of
course isn't an option for everyone, but it *is* an option for some of
us who are already packaging stuff, and maybe I'm not the only one who
prefers it? :)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net