Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/30/2015 11:37 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 08:35:41AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> * 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.
> 
> In this last bullet oint, did you mean "all packages not in the 
> critical path", or did you really mean what it literally says
> above "all packages not in the NON-critical path".  If the latter,
> I suggest a wording change: "all packages in the critical path".
> 

That was a typo. It should read "All packages not in the critical
path". I fixed it on the FESCo ticket. Sorry about that. (Some of this
proposal was reworded as I edited it and I made a few mistakes in the
process). The other was that I forgot to note that the FPC should
retain the right to decide on any exceptions to the set of packages
defined as "critical path" (or WG extensions).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlYMDzkACgkQeiVVYja6o6MwewCgmY2jC0Jcl+Rur2qHFnWxmdiY
odwAnj8KRSr3yODu4gIIMxgJJe79yfTW
=IeEr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----