Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

[gil]

Il 30/09/2015 16:13, Orion Poplawski ha scritto:
> 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.
>
So, for me, is a bad news.
regards
gil