On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 08:14:13AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >> Personally, my stance on this is that, provided that the forks are >> properly renamed such that they will not conflict with other forks of >> the same codebase, there's no reason to disallow them. As mentioned by >> Toshio in the ticket, carrying forks provides a much better alternative >> to bundled libraries in the situations where the primary codebase is >> lacking certain features. > > There's exactly the same reason to avoid closely-related forks as there > is to avoid embedded libraries - if you have a security issue you now > have more places to fix the same bug. The question is whether that cost > is larger or smaller than the gain from carrying the forked code. There is one crucial difference: A maintainer of a forked code base explicitly knows he is maintaining it; a maintainer of a software package that happens to embed a library may not think about maintaining the embedded library at all. Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel