Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

["Jared K. Smith" <jsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm putting up another pass at the proposal, as there were some
critical typographical errors in the last one that caused confusion
(there were a couple places where I wrote "bundled" and meant
"unbundled" and the reverse). This revised version should be clearer.

I've gone over this in my head a number of times, and wonder if it might make more sense to come up with a policy that wasn't necessarily so black and white, and allows for more shades of gray.  Remixing an idea that Spot presented at Southeast LinuxFest a few years back -- what if we assigned a certain number of "points" or "demerits" for each instance of bundling (or other packaging transgressions).

It would then be easier to say "Critical path packages must have 0 points" and "Ring 1" packages must have three or fewer points", and "COPR doesn't care about points", etc...

I think this strikes a fair balance between promoting packaging hygiene and recognizing that not all upstream communities feel the same way Fedora packagers do about bundled libraries.

--

Jared Smith

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct