Re: [Proposal] Ring-based Packaging Policies

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:01:43 -0500
Colin Walters <walters@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015, at 01:32 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> 
> > tl;dr Shall we consider requiring a lesser package review for
> > packages that are not present on Product or Spin install media?
> 
> It's worth noting here that having two levels is not really going
> to be new to the ecosystem; e.g. Ubuntu has had Main/Universe
> for quite a while:
> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/Ubuntu
> 
> I just have one question: You're defining this split at the *runtime*
> level.  Last I saw the Base working group was trying to cut down
> BuildRequires (but sadly I haven't seen them fighting Requires yet -
> I would love if someone did that for Perl)

We generally have requires for most optional functionality in Perl
packages at the moment, to avoid bugs being raised about missing
dependencies when people try to use that optional functionality.

If there was consensus about use of soft dependencies, that would
probably help a lot in the Perl world.

Paul.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux