Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

[Orion Poplawski]

On 09/30/2015 07:45 AM, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> <zbyszek at in.waw.pl> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 08:35:41AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>> * All packages not in the critical path whose upstreams allow them to
>>> be build against system libraries '''must''' be built against system
>>> libraries.
>>> * All packages not in the critical path whose upstreams have no
>>> mechanism to build against system libraries '''must''' be contacted
>>> publicly about a path to supporting system libraries. If upstream
>>> refuses, this must be recorded in a link included in the spec file.
>>> * All packages not in non-critical path whose upstreams have no
>>> mechanism to build against system libraries '''may''' opt to carry
>>> bundled libraries, but if they do, they '''must''' include {{{Provides:
>>> bundled(<libname>) = <version>}}} in their RPM spec file.
>>
>> Very reasonable imho.
>
> Yes, I also see this as a good compromise.
> We then have the ability to at least track bundling.
>
> - fabian
>

I'd just like to point out that we have always had the requirement for 
package that bundled libraries to carry the "Provides: bundled(libname)" 
metadata.  What's new here is not needing to go through the FPC to get 
an exception.  Which perhaps leads to people not declaring their 
packages bundled libraries.

-- 
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager                     303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division                    FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane                  orion at cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301              http://www.cora.nwra.com