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

Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip at kanarip.com
Mon Nov 1 13:22:34 UTC 2010

On Sunday, October 31, 2010 05:50:16 pm Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> 2010/10/31 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com>:
> > On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 12:01:25AM +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> >> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> > Possible how: Apps that bundle libraries must get a commitment from FES
> > that FES will maintain code in the apps should it be needed.  The
> > commitment must be made for every release that Fedora is released for.
> > Possible why: FES is available to do coding work on the distribution.
> > If they sign up for maintaining a package's code, the maintainer does not
> > need to know how to program (only package).  FES, being a group, allows
> > greater flexibility for fixing issues quickly should a security issue
> > need a quick turn-around.
> > 
> > Please add more suggestions -- I'm not really satisfied with any of these
> > so there's definitely room for improvement here.
> The creation of the "crap" repository. This area runs under less
> restrictive packaging guidelines in order to allow for future
> inclusion with the mainline.

"Packages that have not yet been reviewed and accepted. You are on your own. 
Go eat babies!" - genious idea. It would prevent my pending review requests 
from piling up year after year while withholding the package from the 
consumers that may have an interest in the first place, as well.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen

More information about the packaging mailing list