[Fedora-packaging] #15 relaxing guidelines wrt. bundling

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

On Sunday, October 31, 2010 04:41:14 pm Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:01:25AM +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> > As per the thread on advisory-board;
> > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/
> > advisory-board/2010-October/009577.html
> > 
> > I urge you to consider to allow exceptions like these for the greater
> > benefit of your users -and thus upstream, through Fedora.
> 
> The questions are how?  and why?
> 
> Possible how:  Allow apps to bundle libraries period.
> Possible why: Because users are going to run the apps anyway and if they
> come from Fedora, at least we can be providing updates to the broken
> versions as the fixes become available instead of relying on the user to
> seek them out.
> 
> Possible how: Apps are allowed to bundle libraries as long as the
> maintainer commits to keeping the app ported to the newest version of the
> bundled library within Fedora at all times.
> Possible why: Security fixes and bugfixes to the library are going to be
> pushed to the latest versions of packages in Fedora.  We need to make sure
> that the libraries are kept in sync so that we can consume those fixes
> quickly if a problem arises.  We need to make sure that there is someone
> able to make fixes (the maintainer) in case a problem arises.
> 

This means rebasing the bundled library and applying upstream's changes to 
such bundled -but latest- version, right?

This would be perfectly reasonable, including the former option, possibly 
including as much FES effort as possible. However, I suppose with the latter 
option, in the case of Passenger, I'm not sure whether they would see it as a 
breach of the trademark license. I suppose we could look at whether something 
similar has ever occurred with Mozilla?

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip