On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 09:03 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@redhat.c >> om> wrote: >> > I assume that subject line got your attention. >> > >> Most definitely. :) >> >> So it's basically the same but without FPC as a gatekeeper? Do you >> have any proposals for enforcement? A periodic query of Provides >> (bundled-foo) and a BZ requesting a review? Sometime projects >> enable unbundling over time. >> > > > I don't know that enforcement is strictly necessary. Maintainers that > care will self-enforce. Maintainers that don't care won't be aided by > this. > > "Enforcement" implies adding more heavy process, which is part of the > problem this is trying to avoid. Maybe not enforcement but possibly a system that could ping a package manager and say "hey, we noticed you're bundling this lib and don't need to anymore and if you'd like to use the system default version you could" Possibly an opt-in or opt-out type thing to cut down on perceived spam? Just thinking via keyboard, -AdamM > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
