On 09/29/2009 05:00 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 09/29/2009 05:14 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote: > >> Seems that violations of the guidelines are not so important like the >> violation of the Trademark (The hunting of fedora related sites, like >> blogs or forums with adhesions contracts)... Are the project related >> activities are out of balance? > > They are called guidelines and there are always exceptions. Bundling a > library is not ideal but removing rsync would be a extreme step. I don't > think the situation warrants that. Let's not loose perspective here. > So in this case, I think the following things could be said: * Removing rsync is not an option because of how widely it is used. * Bundling libraries in zsync is not an option * If there really exists a way to build against the system zlib and remain compatible (which librsync claims, someone notting talked to does, but zsync upstream does not) then that should be done and we'll patch our packages to do so even if upstream does not accept it. * If we have to use a forked zlib, we'd patch our packages to pull the zlib out of the rsync package with its own soname and ship that so zsync and zsync can interoperate even if upstream does not accept it. However we need to coordinate this with upstream or the other distributions to come up with one standard libname, version, etc. The alternative is that: * People assert that bundled libraries are not problematical enough in the general case to warrant prohibition so the Guideline should be dropped. To do this probably means adding other procedures for maintainers to follow to address the issues that do exist with bundled libraries. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
