On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 11:22 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Is there any case to allow Supplements: in the Fedora Collection? It > seems to me like this could be problematic. (e.g. I write a plugin > for > a popular engine and package it, then add Supplements: so that it > gets > pulled in by default whenever that engine is installed. My plugin > then > causes things to crash.) I think it is reasonable for us to forbid > Supplements: except with FPC exemption. It should be up to the owner > of > the primary package to decide to add Recommends: instead. The new guidelines say "reverse dependencies may be used with the agreement of the package maintainer of the targeted package" which seems good enough to me. "Reverse dependencies are mainly designed for 3rd party vendors who can attach their plug-ins/add-ons/extensions to distribution or other 3rd party packages. Within Fedora the control over which packages a package requires should stay with the package maintainer. There are, however, cases when it is easier for the requiring package not needing to care about all add-ons. In this cases reverse dependencies may be used with the agreement of the package maintainer of the targeted package." -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
