On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 10:32 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > 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." I guess I'd have preferred stronger wording. Something to the effect of "reverse dependencies may not be used except with the permission of the package maintainer of the targeted package."
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
