Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

[Reindl Harald]

Am 30.09.2015 um 16:13 schrieb Orion Poplawski:
> On 09/30/2015 07:45 AM, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
>> Yes, I also see this as a good compromise.
>> We then have the ability to at least track bundling.
>>
> 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.

how do you come to that conclusion?

people not declaring their bundles and not care about policies did the 
same before: not declare it and not ask for exceptions - there is a 
logical flow in "now that i don't need to ask FPC i don't declare it"

the opposite is more likely: people trying to avoid the FPC burden now 
can declare it without fearing somebody takes notice and points out a 
violation

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150930/51b26a59/attachment.sig>