On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 02:59:41PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 12:39 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > >>>>> "MM" == Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > MM> That said, I do recognize that "provides high-quality packages" has > > MM> also always been an underlying Fedora value even if unstated. But, I > > MM> think that _that_ value should be in support of the Big Four, and in > > MM> support of our mission in general, not a sacred beast for its own > > MM> sake. > > > > Well, for the FPC, high quality packaging is pretty much our only > > mission. I'm trying to avoid veering off into hyperbole here, but if we > > can't be focused on our specific mission then that kind of complicates > > our job. > > > > But if FESCo or the board or whoever wants to say that we no longer > > really care about bundling, then FPC will stop caring. Right now we've > > been told to care about bundling and so we developed all of this process > > and rules to implement that directive. > > Hi Jason, > I have the impression (which may be totally wrong) that you are taking > the binary approach here: either we care maximally or we do not care at > all. I took Jason's statement to mean the FPC would stop caring *about bundling* if that's what FESCo (or someone) agrees on. If one change in the guidelines meant the difference between caring at all about packaging, I'd think that ship would have sailed by now! :-) > It seem to me Stephen is making a proposal to tweak just one specific > aspect of packaging rule, that is a softer enforcement model. FPC still > has a truckload other good rules about packaging and nobody believes FPC > should stop caring about overall package quality. > > I have mixed opinions myself about allowing bundling, on the one side it > makes some things worse, on the other hand, however it is sometimes a > way too step barrier to entrance. I've come to the conclusion I'd rather > see a softer approach with strong encouragement to use unbundled > libraries and a need to justify credibly why a bundled library is used > but not a hard rule against it in all cases with hard exceptions to be > doled out by the FPC, I think package review should be able to handle > it. > > This risks making somewhat harder to police egregious mis-behavior, but > I am sure there are other ways to deal with offenders that willfully > break reasonable rules. Agreed. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
