On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 21:30 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2015-09-10 at 18:57 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > I think I'm gonna go and do one of my deep dives into the history of > > these rules tonight. I have a definite memory that at one point the > > accepted wisdom was that only bundling of *already packaged* stuff > > was forbidden, but now i look i can find many recent counter- > > examples to this. So i want to look into it a little further... > > Well, one of the first things I find is that I did this before...back > in June 2014 I posted this: > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-June/199941.html > > which got no responses. Pavel Alexeev followed up in August saying he > also would appreciate clarification: > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-August/201705.html > > and I replied again in January, again trying to get the issue some > attention: > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-January/206142.html > > but again there was no real clarification from anyone on FPC or FESCo > or anything like that. So, hell, I went and researched it myself. > > Here's a kind of timeline of bundling policy/information page events: > > before May 2008: "Duplication of system libraries" section (hereafter 'DOSL') added to Packaging:Guidelines > * NOTE: Can find references to "duplication of system libraries" in review requests at least back to 2006 > September 2008: "Bundling of multiple projects" section (hereafter 'BOMP') added to guidelines > * FPC meeting: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Minutes/20080826?rd=Packaging/Minutes/20080826 > This rule came from a discussion of font packages that bundled multiple font sources. It seems clearly > to be the case that it was intended to cover 'downstream package using multiple unrelated source > tarballs'; it was never intended to cover library bundling. > June 2009: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries (hereafter 'NBL') drafted > October 2009: NBL is 'approved' (per page history; can't find approval ref) > October 2009: DOSL grows a link to NBL (clear that DOSL is the policy, NBL is 'more rationale') > January 2010: 'List' (at the time a single package) of approved exceptions added to NBL > October 2010: Policy for bundling exceptions added to NBL > October 2010: FPC ticket requesting clarification of 'unbundling' procedure: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/19 > October 2010: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Treatment_Of_Bundled_Libraries (hereafter 'TOBL') drafted > December 2010: TOBL approved > December 2010: DOSL grows a link to TOBL (clear that TOBL's job is to explain how packagers should unbundle) > December 2010: Definition of 'library' added to DOSL; Javascript exception included > January 2012: BOMP grows a link to NBL: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/131 > * NOTE: if we're working on the basis that BOMP is for 'multiple unrelated sources in a single package', > this seems to be simply a mistake; the ticket reads as if those involved were acting on the belief > that BOMP is the 'library bundling' policy. DOSL already *had* a link to NBL. > April 2012: 'Parallel stacks' explanation added to DOSL - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/159 > > Unfortunately I can't find a lot of clear discussion of one of the > questions that interests me the most: the question of non-packaged > 'libraries'. The best I can do is this. There's a passing line in an > FPC meeting in November 2011 - https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/te > ams/fpc/fpc.2010-11-17-16.07.log.html : > > <tibbs> Personally I'd like to see things like a plan for resolving > the bundling, the attitude of the upstream of the bundled code and > input from the Fedora maintainer of the package which is being bundled > (if one exists). > > no-one bats an eye at that 'if one exists', which at least strongly > implies that as far back as November 2010, FPC had a consensus that > things which weren't packaged could be considered to be 'bundled > libraries' for the purposes of DOSL. Then there is of course the > explicit line in TOBL: > > "bundled libraries being defined as libraries which exist and are > mantained independently, whether or not they are packaged separately > for Fedora" > > As near as I can tell, this line was present in TOBL from the very > first draft - https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:Tre > atment_Of_Bundled_Libraries&oldid=201777 - and was not questioned or > discussed in any way in the various FPC and FESCo meetings around that > time. There's no express point where people look at it and say "yes, > that's OK" either, but at the very least it seems reasonable to assume > that the FPC folks of the time read the draft, saw that language, and > were OK with it. > > So, my conclusions having dug through all this stuff: > > 1. The canonical definition of what constitutes 'library bundling' is > split between DOSL and the preamble of TOBL. It would be much clearer > if the bundled library definition from TOBL were moved into DOSL. It > would also help if TOBL linked back to DOSL. > > 2. The true purpose of TOBL should be 'explaining to packagers the > correct procedures for unbundling libraries'. All info on that topic > should go there, and nothing *else* should go there (see 1.) > > 3. The original purpose of NBL was to explain *why* the 'library > bundling' policy (i.e. DOSL) existed. It was not intended to be a > policy page. However, for a long time it has awkwardly served multiple > functions: > > i) explaining "why do we have DOSL?" > ii) defining the policy on bundling exceptions > iii) storing the list of granted exceptions > > I suggest it would be much clearer if these three functions were > properly split up, and of course sensible links provided between all > relevant pages. > > 4. It seems fairly clear that BOMP was intended to mean, basically, > 'don't take a bunch of tarballs from different places and stuff them > all into one package'. It was *not* intended to cover 'library > bundling' in any sense. I'd suggest that it should be clarified > somewhat - perhaps including an explicit internal link to DOSL - and > the link from BOMP to NBL should be *removed*, since it is not > appropriate there. > > Does this make sense to folks? I'm willing to draft up the changes and > file an FPC ticket if so. I think any debate on what changes should be > made to the current policies would benefit from these changes to make > what the current policies actually *are* clearer, so I don't mind > doing it even if they all have to change again fairly soon. Standing ovation for the amazing forensic work! Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
