On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:45:23 -0700, Ken Dreyer wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 16:49:13 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >> Ultimately, it's about one thing: Help get more software into Fedora > >> without scaring people away. > > > > What is the background for this? Who has been scared away? > > Here's one review where the submitter worked very hard to jump through > all the hoops until it came to the FPC bundling exception process. > It's my opinion that Carlos would be a Fedora package maintainer today > if that FPC process hadn't taken so long. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/682544 So, everybody's grief is just the unbundling policy? Is that the only thing that "scares away" people? Everything related to this proposal is only because of bundling? > Here's the new policy that I would vote for: > > 1) We allow bundled libraries, and each bundled library MUST have a > virtual Provides: bundled(foo) in the RPM spec. (The packager SHOULD > provide a version number too, with the admission that it is sometimes > difficult to get this number correct.) > > 2) If another packager comes up with a patch to unbundle the library and files > the patch in Bugzilla, then the package maintainer MUST take the > patch. > > 3) If the package maintainer disagrees with the patch for whatever reason > (maybe it's a feature regression, or whatever), they MUST bring it to > the FPC for arbitration. The FPC must take into account the loss of > functionality that unbundling could imply. > > This revised policy would lower the barrier to entry for newcomers, > and still leave room for more advanced contributors to do the work if > they desired to do so. Isn't the combination of 2) and 3) a potential threat that will scare away the maintainer again? (especially if upstream doesn't accept the patch) -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
