On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 12:06 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:51:42 -0700 > Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2015-09-11 at 13:35 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > > > As for which components, it's not about specific examples[1]. > > > It's > > > about solving the question in a generic way. We have quite a lot > > > of > > > software that isn't packaged for Fedora (either not started or > > > aborted > > > when the package review couldn't be passed) that has genuine > > > value. > > > > I can certainly confirm that. I dug through quite a lot of review > > requests yesterday to look at how the rules have been applied in > > practice, and found several that have been abandoned because of > > bundling issues. I'll just link one example - > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836810 - but it's > > trivial > > to find more. > > But by the same token, a great deal of upstream projects don't bundle > things and are just fine packaged up in Fedora. I don't think anyone was advocating a policy that all packages must have a minimum of 1 (one) bundled library ;) I agree that the discussion here needs to be more broad-based; see the other thread fork. I was just providing support for Stephen's contention that this is not some airy-fairy theoretical problem, there are multiple examples of real things that people *wanted* to have packaged that are not packaged because the unbundling process was too onerous. -- 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
