Just to circle around here (in case people don't read my reply to the
FESCo meeting agenda), I'm making the following revised proposal[1] to
FESCo which may or may not be discussed at today's meeting (given that
it was submitted late):
=== Mandatory ===
* The Fedora Base Working Group has been tasked with defining the base
platform of Fedora since its inception. As part of this proposal, we
set a deadline for them to provide (and maintain) a specific list of
critical path packages. The critical path set is ''not'' required to be
self-hosting.
* Working Groups for the separate Editions '''may''' voluntarily add
packages into the critical path atop the Base WG requirements.
* All packages in the critical path '''must''' obey the current strict
bundling rules.
* All packages not in the critical path whose upstreams allow them to
be build against system libraries '''must''' be built against system
libraries.
* All packages not in the critical path whose upstreams have no
mechanism to build against system libraries '''must''' be contacted
publicly about a path to supporting system libraries. If upstream
refuses, this must be recorded in a link included in the spec file.
* All packages not in non-critical path whose upstreams have no
mechanism to build against system libraries '''may''' opt to carry
bundled libraries, but if they do, they '''must''' include {{{Provides:
bundled(<libname>) = <version>}}} in their RPM spec file.
=== Strongly Recommended ===
* Packages in the critical path should be re-reviewed every two years
(possibly as a Flock workshop) to avoid unintentional divergence from
the policies.
[1] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1483Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
