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

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Mon Nov 1 14:45:34 UTC 2010

On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 02:20:11PM +0100, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> 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?
I don't believe it has but that's just from the thoughts, opinions, etc,
that I'm seeing in the current round of Mozilla bundling tickets upstream.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20101101/af9fe539/attachment.bin 

More information about the packaging mailing list