On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 11:17 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 09:30:37PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > 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. > > In other words, the initial concern was keeping _Fedora_ from > bundling > things, not with keeping upstreams from doing it (or even rejecting > upstreams that did). I think that's probably because that practice > upstream was much more rare back then — it just wasn't a big issue, > and > it probably seemed reasonable that we _could_ influence the weird > cases > where it did happen. No, not quite. BOMP came much later than DOSL. Of all the bits of text I referred to in the timeline, the basic prohibition on bundled libraries - DOSL - is the *oldest*: I can't tell you exactly how long it's been around as we don't have the pre-MW history available and I couldn't find it by other means, but I at least found package reviews going back to 2006 which cite the exact text "duplication of system libraries", and there's also a post on the initial guidelines for Fedora Extras which includes that string. So we've basically forbidden library bundling more or less since the year dot (I suspect, but can't prove, that the text initially existed as some kind of Red Hat internal rule for RHL, and got carried over to Fedora); everything that's happened since then has been a refinement or clarification of that policy. BOMP was added much later, so it wasn't "the initial concern", it was more that a *different* kind of 'bundling' became a concern later on. What appears to have happened is that people started making packages like 'some-awesome-fonts', or something like that, which pulled together several different fonts from several different upstreams. This was considered to be a problem, and a fairly involved guideline was drafted specifically about font packaging - it used to live right above BOMP. As part of the review process of the font guideline, the more general BOMP guideline was proposed and also accepted - that's in the FPC meeting log I linked: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Minutes/20080826?rd=Packaging/Minutes/20080826 . It's noted during the meeting that there was already an informal convention that multiple-unrelated-sources were a Bad Thing, and so it would make sense to just write that down. Fairly soon after, the font-specific guideline was effectively moved into the dedicated Packaging:FontsPolicy page. spot fiddled with the pages several times on Jan 20, 2009; by the time he was done, things looked more or less as they do now, with the general BOMP guideline then a short fonts section which linked out to Packaging:FontsPolicy where the detailed, font-specific guideline lived. > > 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. > > Makes sense, yeah. OK, I'll work up some drafts and a ticket. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
